I have an issue with the term controversial! If someone suggests you are controversial, are they really just being controversial themselves? I mean you have your view, they have theirs? Is your view only controversial if it is a minority view, like Darwinism and gay marriage once was? Or can you also have a 50:50 view and be controversial. Is all politics therefore controversial, because one half disagree with the other??!
Is being controversial a 'thing'?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
I think there is a shade of difference between being intentionally controversial and simply offering an opinion on an undecided issue.
For instance, if I suggest that it is possible that loopholes exist in the concept that the speed of light is an absolute limit, that is a matter that currently open for debate. So while there is controversy over that subject, my statement wouldn't be extreme because I would merely be repeating an existing controversy that is clearly not settled.
On the other hand, if I were a Biblical literalist, I might insist that Man's existence comes from the story in Genesis. Even though DNA studies can detail the changes and mutations that led from our hominid ancestor to us. Even though we have paleontological evidence of many of the changes. Even though we have a firm place on the genetically determined "Tree of Life." The Biblical literalists KNOW about evolution (even though they do not accept it). Therefore, to make a "creationist" statement around scientifically-oriented people is more likely to have involved the intention to spark controversy.
And of course, IF I were to tell you that black is white, you'd know that I was up to something.
For instance, if I suggest that it is possible that loopholes exist in the concept that the speed of light is an absolute limit, that is a matter that currently open for debate. So while there is controversy over that subject, my statement wouldn't be extreme because I would merely be repeating an existing controversy that is clearly not settled.
On the other hand, if I were a Biblical literalist, I might insist that Man's existence comes from the story in Genesis. Even though DNA studies can detail the changes and mutations that led from our hominid ancestor to us. Even though we have paleontological evidence of many of the changes. Even though we have a firm place on the genetically determined "Tree of Life." The Biblical literalists KNOW about evolution (even though they do not accept it). Therefore, to make a "creationist" statement around scientifically-oriented people is more likely to have involved the intention to spark controversy.
And of course, IF I were to tell you that black is white, you'd know that I was up to something.
What about something like climate change? The trigger word for me was "settled", and hence it brought this topic to mind. Most climate change alarmists claim that the "science is settled." The skeptics dispute this. So there is no agreement on whether or not the science is "settled" between the disputing parties. Therefore, it would seem to me that one side considers the skeptics position controversial and the other side doesn't. The skeptics are simply offering their scientific opinion on what they consider to be an undecided issue. The alarmist consider the issue decided.
So is this a controversy or not?
So is this a controversy or not?
Serious dissenters exist regarding climate change but their arguments have been offered in another thread.
This statement proves that the science ISN'T "settled" which in turn suggests that those who claim it IS settled are attempting to bully someone into submission by using the tactic of argumentum ad populem to silence critics. Such arguments fail on several counts. First, contrary to the old phrase, fifty million Frenchmen CAN be wrong. Second, science doesn't go by numbers in agreement. It goes by proofs and experimental corroboration.
Therefore, in response to your direct question? It is indeed a controversy.
This statement proves that the science ISN'T "settled" which in turn suggests that those who claim it IS settled are attempting to bully someone into submission by using the tactic of argumentum ad populem to silence critics. Such arguments fail on several counts. First, contrary to the old phrase, fifty million Frenchmen CAN be wrong. Second, science doesn't go by numbers in agreement. It goes by proofs and experimental corroboration.
Therefore, in response to your direct question? It is indeed a controversy.
I am often deliberately controversial. I am the sort of person that parks in the middle of a car park in 4 spaces. I only do this when the car park is practically empty, and I am in the car, usually eating a McDonald's! It's amazing how many people look at me as if I am doing something totally wrong, the parking, not the eating of the McDonald's!
Over the years especially with most things but in particular with MS Access I noticed that people just take things for granted. Somebody says you shouldn't use global variables. Actually you can use global variables, is just that there are much safer ways to do it. What I'm trying to say is people accept the status Quo the accepted methodology without question. I like to think that I don't. I will ask annoying questions of my peers and betters until I get to the truth.
I remember years ago a farmer bought a brand new tractor for his farm. One of the conditions of using the tractor for the Warranty was to use a specific oil from British Petroleum, a very expensive oil, 3 times more expensive than the normal Farm oil in use. The Warranty said if you didn't use this oil then the Warranty was invalidated. But the farmer would not let it go, he contacted everyone within the company selling the tractor until he eventually discovered that by using this oil, the tractor would work in any place in the World from the coldest to the hottest. That's why the oil was specified. He got them to accept that it was OK for him to use the normal everyday oil used in his other Machinery. What I'm saying is, I don't see it as controversial to challenge the status Quo, the accepted way of doing things. In fact, to me, it appears a little stupid not to.
The other story that springs to mind is the people in a waiting room standing up by command. More HERE:-
Going back to Access, the thing that is intriguing me at the moment, the one I am trying to fathom out is whether you should use subs or functions. I have seen many people berated for not converting their functions into subs where possible. However I find this a time consuming and unnecessary process. Especially after a few times of having to convert them back into functions.
And then there's the case, I think it's in the event of a control, you actually have to use a function, you cannot use a subroutine, thereby being forced to break this rule by the construction of the software that the rule is a dictate of... I think of it a different way round, a routine for triggering an event for the control is always a subroutine. Now you could say this is because nothing is returned, however it also distinguishes between many of the routines built-in to Access, and the routines created by a programmer. So let's say you placed in the onclick event of a command button, in the onclick event of another command button. This is automatically blocked by this behaviour. I think it's some sort of protection, protection to stop the programmer calling control events from another control event.
So what have I actually said? What I'm saying is I challenge the rule that you should convert all functions to subroutines where possible. The reasoning, if you have a subroutine which you call from a control event, (=fMySub) then you have to convert that subroutine into a function for it to work. Thereby breaking this rule to actually use MS Access in the way it is designed. The design of MS Access actually forces you to break this rule! So why not break the rules across the board? In other words is it really a rule, or just one of those things that everyone believes to be a rule?
My answer to that is I think it's a protection built into the structure of MS Access, haven't proved this yet but you can experiment yourself if you try and call a subroutine from a controls event, the message you get indicates that the subroutine cannot be found. You can mimic this yourself, first of all create a function and call it from a control event, it works, change the function into a subroutine and it stops working. Change it back into a function and it works, now --- comment out the function, so it no longer exists, you get the same error message as if you were trying to call as a subroutine. In other words this indicates to me that the subroutine is not in the collection of objects available to the to the controls event only the only available options are [Event Procedure], [Macro] or =fMyFunction --- =fMySub is NOT ALLOWED!
I remember years ago a farmer bought a brand new tractor for his farm. One of the conditions of using the tractor for the Warranty was to use a specific oil from British Petroleum, a very expensive oil, 3 times more expensive than the normal Farm oil in use. The Warranty said if you didn't use this oil then the Warranty was invalidated. But the farmer would not let it go, he contacted everyone within the company selling the tractor until he eventually discovered that by using this oil, the tractor would work in any place in the World from the coldest to the hottest. That's why the oil was specified. He got them to accept that it was OK for him to use the normal everyday oil used in his other Machinery. What I'm saying is, I don't see it as controversial to challenge the status Quo, the accepted way of doing things. In fact, to me, it appears a little stupid not to.
The other story that springs to mind is the people in a waiting room standing up by command. More HERE:-
Going back to Access, the thing that is intriguing me at the moment, the one I am trying to fathom out is whether you should use subs or functions. I have seen many people berated for not converting their functions into subs where possible. However I find this a time consuming and unnecessary process. Especially after a few times of having to convert them back into functions.
And then there's the case, I think it's in the event of a control, you actually have to use a function, you cannot use a subroutine, thereby being forced to break this rule by the construction of the software that the rule is a dictate of... I think of it a different way round, a routine for triggering an event for the control is always a subroutine. Now you could say this is because nothing is returned, however it also distinguishes between many of the routines built-in to Access, and the routines created by a programmer. So let's say you placed in the onclick event of a command button, in the onclick event of another command button. This is automatically blocked by this behaviour. I think it's some sort of protection, protection to stop the programmer calling control events from another control event.
So what have I actually said? What I'm saying is I challenge the rule that you should convert all functions to subroutines where possible. The reasoning, if you have a subroutine which you call from a control event, (=fMySub) then you have to convert that subroutine into a function for it to work. Thereby breaking this rule to actually use MS Access in the way it is designed. The design of MS Access actually forces you to break this rule! So why not break the rules across the board? In other words is it really a rule, or just one of those things that everyone believes to be a rule?
My answer to that is I think it's a protection built into the structure of MS Access, haven't proved this yet but you can experiment yourself if you try and call a subroutine from a controls event, the message you get indicates that the subroutine cannot be found. You can mimic this yourself, first of all create a function and call it from a control event, it works, change the function into a subroutine and it stops working. Change it back into a function and it works, now --- comment out the function, so it no longer exists, you get the same error message as if you were trying to call as a subroutine. In other words this indicates to me that the subroutine is not in the collection of objects available to the to the controls event only the only available options are [Event Procedure], [Macro] or =fMyFunction --- =fMySub is NOT ALLOWED!
Last edited:
Uncle G, there are simple reasons for this, having to do with what can and cannot accept a returned value. However, add to your list the Macro action RunCode and you will find that there, you CAN'T run a subroutine but CAN run a function! (The opposite of an event case.) This isn't a techie forum, so bring it up in the Access World forum if you want to delve into the techie issues.
However, your point about challenging "conventional wisdom" isn't wrong. Sometimes - like the story of the tractor and the special oil, there is actually an unpublished reason. Sometimes there is actually a bunch of logic or science behind it. Other times, it is a matter of someone just not wanting to bother with some unusual case. It helps to know which case you are challenging.
Here's another case in point: Cemeteries in south Louisiana include lots of above-ground crypts and mausoleums. You are required to use a wooden casket for burial in those structures. If you are unlucky enough that prior users of the crypt didn't follow the rule, it can cost you a bunch of money. We didn't know the reason there was a rule, so we questioned it. A cemetery manager explained it to us.
Turns out that metal caskets are too good! They last a long time and preserve the mortal remains for too long. They actually can be hermetically sealed. When you use one, the crypt becomes unusable for another burial unless you pay an extra fee to have the oldest metal casket processed specially. I.e. open it, re-shroud the body, drop the body into the ash pit under the crypt, send the casket for metal reclamation. But if you had used a wooden casket, natural decay processes make the crypt re-usable in a matter of five to ten years as the wood decays, the body decays, and things fall through the wire shelf into the ash pit. ("Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" as the old quote says.) Found this out yesterday when making arrangements for my mother-in-law's final interment. Both previous burials had used metal.
However, your point about challenging "conventional wisdom" isn't wrong. Sometimes - like the story of the tractor and the special oil, there is actually an unpublished reason. Sometimes there is actually a bunch of logic or science behind it. Other times, it is a matter of someone just not wanting to bother with some unusual case. It helps to know which case you are challenging.
Here's another case in point: Cemeteries in south Louisiana include lots of above-ground crypts and mausoleums. You are required to use a wooden casket for burial in those structures. If you are unlucky enough that prior users of the crypt didn't follow the rule, it can cost you a bunch of money. We didn't know the reason there was a rule, so we questioned it. A cemetery manager explained it to us.
Turns out that metal caskets are too good! They last a long time and preserve the mortal remains for too long. They actually can be hermetically sealed. When you use one, the crypt becomes unusable for another burial unless you pay an extra fee to have the oldest metal casket processed specially. I.e. open it, re-shroud the body, drop the body into the ash pit under the crypt, send the casket for metal reclamation. But if you had used a wooden casket, natural decay processes make the crypt re-usable in a matter of five to ten years as the wood decays, the body decays, and things fall through the wire shelf into the ash pit. ("Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" as the old quote says.) Found this out yesterday when making arrangements for my mother-in-law's final interment. Both previous burials had used metal.
The rule about light bulbs that got me riled up was that you can't legally use old incandescent bulbs any more, so what did the U.S. Congress decide to do? Mandate use of the CFC bulbs. BUT those contain traces of mercury and therefore cannot be simply tossed in the trash. (Well, at least not if someone is looking...). The saving grace is the new line of super-bright LED strips. We just converted our kitchen to use those and they put out a phenomenal amount of light. LEDs will fail, too, but their average lifespan is 10 times that of the old incandescent bulbs. The next time we have to invest in some new bulbs, we will use the LED types with conventional bases. It will be worth it.
The desktop PC, for ALL of its idiocy that led to the phrase "Plug and pray" and calls for defenestration, nonetheless can be given a fresh breath of life now and then. And after my time spent with the U.S. Navy as a system admin, I learned that despite the Apple ads to the contrary, there is no such thing as being "virus proof" in computers. So I have stayed with annoying PCs.
For some strange reason I took a real fancy to the first Google Pixel. I went and bought one, it was in excess of $1,000 pounds euros! Pick whichever one you like! This was around 5 years ago. Now I am getting a warning that the software is no longer being upgraded/supported - something like that. I have no idea if it's safe to use, it doesn't tell me that. For the 5 years I've had it, it's cost me what $/£/Euro 200 a year I could have bought reasonable Second-hand laptop for around $/£/Euro 200 every year!
Still, it does give me a lot of Joy this Google Pixel, but I don't think I will ever be tempted to buy something "expensive" again.
By the way I also got like, 1 terabyte of storage space for free for a year or two, but then I had to start paying for it. There's no way I would have needed one terabyte of storage space, but because it was free, well, you just keep saving everything! This results in a situation where you've either got to have a clear-out, (who wants to do that) or keep paying for storage you don't really need... I thought what a very clever marketing idea... A trap!
Still, it does give me a lot of Joy this Google Pixel, but I don't think I will ever be tempted to buy something "expensive" again.
By the way I also got like, 1 terabyte of storage space for free for a year or two, but then I had to start paying for it. There's no way I would have needed one terabyte of storage space, but because it was free, well, you just keep saving everything! This results in a situation where you've either got to have a clear-out, (who wants to do that) or keep paying for storage you don't really need... I thought what a very clever marketing idea... A trap!