Rain -
Your reading of the thread in terms of its original title was totally natural. I avoided that mistake only due to my ingrained training as business analyst - first, seek to understand the business operation. The primary reason I correctly tracked dylcon's needs can be found back on page 1 of the thread, post #2 in fact, when I identified the fact that "Part type" wasn't a part type at all, but was a description of what process the part was supposed to undergo. ONLY that aspect of the work was being tracked about the parts, so there couldn't be any assembly or sales aspect. That allowed me to hone in on the true form of the organization and purpose of the database, and then nudge the design in the correct direction to address the business need.
I've seen several threads where I thought your comments were spot-on, better adapted to the situation than my own conclusions, and IMHO your comments here were quite relevant to the subject as well. I always take your opinions seriously, even if I don't necessarily agree with their phrasing or the particular conclusions they express, in context.
Yeah, that pretty much goes without saying. I always have the Hobson's choice between addressing pieces of the conversation in a fragmentary way, or writing an essay. I tend to prefer the second, especially when the essay can clarify the considerations involved in a complex suggestion. It still doesn't mean that I'll be caught up on the conversation when I finally hit "save".Maybe you are covering too much in one post.
If I'm clear, but wrong, I'm sure the wiser heads like you will slap me down as necessary.