Pat Hartman has left the building (1 Viewer)

[moke123]

Aw, moke... should I throw a lie your way just to help you keep in practice?

Nah, I get plenty of practice IRL. After 40+ years it's second nature.

 

[Isaac]

Can you guarantee that your idea of what’s right and decent is truly correct?
Isn’t it possible that those who do wrong, also act from a belief that they’re doing what’s right?
Right and wrong often depend on perspective — culture, upbringing, experience.
If everyone’s convinced their values are the right ones, how can you tell you're actually right?

This , obviously, is the great conundrum of life that we face - establishing what we think is right.

I invite various outside opinions into my life about what is right and wrong, but "what people think of me" is a specific thing in English, it's people's opinions about me after everything is said and done. This is where I draw the line.

I carefully curate the list of people who I allow to have influence over my life, the vast majority of people's opinions are not inside that well drawn circle.

 

[Isaac]

A hard question:
Do you really think that pat believed that her behaviour was wrong?
Hint : No, she assumed she was on the correct side.

I disagree; I think deep down she knew that her outbursts, the more extreme ones, were too inflammatory, but thought she could do it regardless because of tenure and establishment here.

People often do things they know are wrong; not everything people do is because they think they're right.

 

[NauticalGent]

but thought she could do it regardless because of tenure and establishment here.

I thought so too, but I cant say for sure now. One thing for sure is SOMETHING was off. Towards the end, I was in disbelief. Even her "antagonists" knew when discretion and strategic withdrawal were needed.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Towards the end, I was in disbelief. Even her "antagonists" knew when discretion and strategic withdrawal were needed.

Towards the end of our final debate, I withdrew by saying "I stand firmly in my beliefs and I am withdrawing from this debate". I think that infuriated her even more and her diatribe spilled over to other posts despite that thread being frozen.

 

[Cotswold]

I am a little disappointed that Pat has had her forum posts regarding Access advice removed. Her opinions and advice over the years must have helped hundreds if not thousands of Access users. If everyone did that the forum would become insignificant.
Additionally, I am surprised that postings when added don't become the property/copyright of access-programmers.

Surely the decision to delete being the option of Jon alone, or from advice given. I will reiterate that I refer to technical Access posts, IT, computer language and software etc. Watercooler and similar opinion related posts I don't include and can understand that some may require deletions.

 

[dalski]

I am a little disappointed that Pat has had her forum posts regarding Access advice removed. Her opinions and advice over the years must have helped hundreds if not thousands of Access users. If everyone did that the forum would become insignificant.

Agree completely, I'm very grateful for the help & guidance Pat gave me & time taken from her day to generously explain things I could not have understood without her. I cannot count how many times I fail to understand something & load my old threads to rediscover the answer. Now a considerable number of them are gone.

The Pareto Principle is greatly evident in the forum & removing such a valuable contributor's posts is not helpful. Shows great character from @Jon in honouring Pat's wishes at his own personal expense (lower SEO rank I'd imagine & less valuable content on forum now). That's in no way a dig at anyone here obviously, it's a compliment to some very capable, generous users; @MajP, @The_Doc_Man , @cheekybuddha, @MarkK , @isladogs, @arnelgp , @Minty, @RonPaii ... 80% of the work done by < 20% of the members whom astutely, concisely provide fantastic solutions. Very generous with their time & expertise. Apologies to anyone I've left out.

Additionally, I am surprised that postings when added don't become the property/copyright of access-programmers.

Pretty sure they do, T&C's of this specific site & general legal precedent.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Agree completely, I'm very grateful for the help & guidance Pat gave me & time taken from her day to generously explain things I could not have understood without her. I cannot count how many times I fail to understand something & load my old threads to rediscover the answer. Now a considerable number of them are gone.

The Pareto Principle is greatly evident in the forum & removing such a valuable contributor's posts is not helpful. Shows great character from @Jon in honouring Pat's wishes at his own personal expense (lower SEO rank I'd imagine & less valuable content on forum now). That's in no way a dig at anyone here obviously, it's a compliment to some very capable, generous users; @MajP, @The_Doc_Man , @cheekybuddha, @MarkK , @isladogs, @arnelgp , @Minty ... 80% of the work done by < 20% of the members whom astutely, concisely provide fantastic solutions. Very generous with their time & expertise. Apologies to anyone I've left out.



Pretty sure they do, T&C's of this specific site & general legal precedent.

It is a great loss indeed. However, I think her posts can still be viewed using the wayback machine's 6 October 2025 snapshot of AWF:

https://web.archive.org/web/20251006111123/https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/

 

[sonic8]

Additionally, I am surprised that postings when added don't become the property/copyright of access-programmers.

Pretty sure they do, T&C's of this specific site & general legal precedent.

Copyright law differs quite a bit from country to country in that regard.
In general, it is very unlikely that just the T&Cs of a website are a legally sound basis for a transfer of a copyright.
The likely legal situation is that by posting on the site the author of the post grants an indefinite right of usage of the posted material to the party owning the site. If and when such a right of use can be revoked depends on the applicable law and the T&Cs and may result in complex legal proceedings.

All legal matters aside, in my opinion Jon did the right thing in deleting the posts as he was asked to.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Copyright law differs quite a bit from country to country in that regard.
In general, it is very unlikely that just the T&Cs of a website are a legally sound basis for a transfer of a copyright.
The likely legal situation is that by posting on the site the author of the post grants an indefinite right of usage of the posted material to the party owning the site. If and when such a right of use can be revoked depends on the applicable law and the T&Cs and may result in complex legal proceedings.

All legal matters aside, in my opinion Jon did the right thing in deleting the posts as he was asked to.

It's generally understood and accepted that anything that's published on the web is donated, becomes public domain and can be republished or used in any way without author's permission.

 

[BlueSpruce]

It's generally understood and accepted that anything that's published on the web is donated, becomes public domain and can be republished or used in any way without author's permission.

I know my above statement can be shocking. However, anyone can still sue for copyright violation, spend time and money doing so and there's no guarantees of prevailing. The legal system is so overwhelmed with law suits that it may take years for your case to be heard. You also have the question of whether a country is going to enforce copyright protection from another country. It's a lot easier to assume anything you publish on the web has no expectation of protection.

 

[Isaac]

My Civil Procedure professor in law school was a young-ish lady from Harvard, Julie Cromer, whose specialty was IP law. Very easy on the eyes, she was, and she liked me especially because as it turns out, civ pro was my specialty - the one thing I was really good at, ranking at the top of my class at Thomas Jefferson. Leave it to me to be really good at what most people consider the absolute most boring and nearly incidental aspect of the law, but I found it fascinating. I think she would take issue with some of your generalizations, but ok

 

[BlueSpruce]

I think she would take issue with some of your generalizations, but ok

It would be very interesting if you could take what I said and run it through her to see what opinion she has. I know there are copyright and patent protections which several countries have reciprocating compacts for honoring claims. However, that does not prevent infringements from occurring. You can chase after violators, but you better have enough resources and it better be worth pursuing. The last case I can remember of someone successfully suing a big company for infringement was in year 2005 in Carlos Amado vs. Microsoft for creating a point and shoot interface to link Access database records to Excel spreadsheets whereby data of a record is automatically reformatted and loaded upon issuance of a recalculation command. A lot has changed since then. All EULA's have changed so that anything you create with a licensed product can be used by the licensor without the creators permission, and as for the internet? . . . well, you know, it's the wild wild west

 

[Cotswold]

It's generally understood and accepted that anything that's published on the web is donated, becomes public domain and can be republished or used in any way without author's permission.

From my experience I do not believe that to be correct. However, I can appreciate that once posted it can be difficult to remove. Which is different.

Does a poster upload with the intention that it is copyright free? Is the post the poster's work or is it owned by someone else. Sections of code from various books, or other websites are often uploaded but a blind eye to that is invariably given in the general interest. Simply posting something online cannot suddenly make it copyright free. In fact a copyright owner could request, its removal and threaten damages.
However, when posting on AW, by custom and practice I think we do in the main understand that we offer it copyright free and without reward.

On AW the T&Cs state : You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

It is in this case that Pat's posts are her copyright but content could be retained and re-used by AW but they cannot be used by a third party for their re-issue, or profit without permission. We can all appreciate just how much time it would have taken to write 48,000 posts. From now onwards all that time has been thrown away. It is a pity that her many solutions are lost but there you go. These things happen.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Simply posting something online cannot suddenly make it copyright free. In fact a copyright owner could request, its removal and threaten damages.

Sometimes I will get on YouTube and find a music reviewer. They are allowed to replay a particular music video but the Fair Use exceptions don't include playing the video in full and continuously. You have to either garble the video or break its continuity. I have seen videos where the reviewer had to re-post with altered replay of the reviewed material. For example, Pentatonix, one of the best a capella groups you will ever hear, DEFINITELY will chase reviewers who fail to edit what they show If you check that video later, the reviewer will admit in their content that their current video was re-posted after editing to comply with the Fair Use limits. In many cases, international reviewers of Pentatonix (a USA group) still run afoul of the copyright issues.

 

[BlueSpruce]

... In many cases, international reviewers of Pentatonix (a USA group) still run afoul of the copyright issues.

This is what I'm talking about. People violate the copyright despite, especially if they're in foreign countries. Even when you report the violation, you still have to spend time and money hiring foreign attorneys who specialize in intellectual property, court costs, etc. and they can drag out the process making you spend more money. Does anyone remember the Metallica vs. Napster case? Although Metallica prevailed, I don't think they got anywhere near the $10M they were seeking, and it changed the whole music industry. Artists now only get pennies on the dollar royalties from streaming services and everyone shares free copies. It essentially killed the music industry and artists now rely on tours to make money from concert goers.

 

[Isaac]

Simply posting something online cannot suddenly make it copyright free. In fact a copyright owner could request, its removal and threaten damages.

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that simply posting another person's work is violating copyright law. Not all public posting is "unauthorized use"

 

[Isaac]

This is what I'm talking about. People violate the copyright despite, especially if they're in foreign countries. Even when you report the violation, you still have to spend time and money hiring foreign attorneys who specialize in intellectual property, court costs, etc. and they can drag out the process making you spend more money. Does anyone remember the Metallica vs. Napster case? Although Metallica prevailed, I don't think they got anywhere near the $10M they were seeking, and it changed the whole music industry. Artists now only get pennies on the dollar royalties from streaming services and everyone shares free copies. It essentially killed the music industry and artists now rely on tours to make money from concert goers.

Classic example of something that was good for the consumer, but not for the businesses. A lot of consumer protection laws are like this IN MY opinion. It might sound wonderful for the consumer, for example, that you have to provide a one-click cancellation feature. But it's horrible for the businesses, and when you make it more difficult to conduct business, you hurt EVERYONE, as our economy works by way of business being conducted. I'm suspicious of most consumer protection laws, as I feel a majority of them are nonsense. Hippa was a great example. In 20 years of being involved in, or near, the healthcare industry, I have encountered 10's of 1000's of situations where Hipaa was horrible for the business. In those same 20 years, I have yet to meet a single person who thinks or says, "Hippa is so great for me - I'm thankful for it protecting me". No, all it has done is cause trouble. I'm sorry, we can't tell you that b/c of hippa. I'm sorry, we can't email that to you because of Hippa. I'm sorry, you can't make a doctors appointment for your 19 yr old son because of Hippa. I'm sorry, you as the head of the household can't review the claims and EOB's of YOUR OWN dependents on YOUR OWN insurance policy because of Hippa. I'm sorry, we have to create a 20-person team of project managers, programmers and managers to try to figure out how to comply with __________ aspect of Hippa.

I would like to meet the moron that passed that law, and explain to him how it has done nothing but cause trouble.

 

[Steve R.]

I would like to meet the moron that passed that law, and explain to him how it has done nothing but cause trouble.

HIPPA is a joke. Every-time, you see a doctor they gather information and then "share" it with an endless number of "affiliates".

My primary reason for responding concerns the application of HIPPA in the past versus now. When the Aids epidemic first broke-out many years ago HIPPA was used to suppress virtually all discussion. You could not even ask a person if they had Aids. Recently, when Covid broke out, all of a sudden, HIPPA was redefined to so that everyone had to publicly disclose their Covid status to the world. Amazing how a law can be whimsically redifined to achieve political goals.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yup, every time I go to the pharmacy, they ask if I want a booster (COVID, flu, etc.), so it seems my primary care provider is sharing my medical information with a third party.