>Personally I agree with John Baird on this conversation. It's extremely comical.

I was not commenting on the entire conversation. If you look at my exchanges with both Walter and Claude they were in support of Kevin posting his announcment here. I was simply commenting on the statement made by John to Claude, which seems to have the sole purpose of starting (or continuing) an argument.

>
>The main cause of this thread going on for so long, and being so lengthly, is that many feel some type of personal threat because someone has posted a message here with the basic message of "if you would like to learn how to leverage your current skill set to learn another tool, I am offering a class to teach you just so".

I feel the same way, however, I try to have a more constructive response. Instead of making taunting comments or insulting remarks I try to help show another point of view. If you insult someone, then their natural reaction is to become defensive and launch an offense of their own. This helps no one, especially not the one attempting to get their point across with the insults.

If you can share a different point of view, shed some new light on the subject, or explain how and why their conclusion may not be definitive of everyones conclusion then understanding may come about. If after some conversation both sides still don't agree or understand then they just agree to disagree with both sides acknowledging the right of the other to have their own opinion. This is constructive.

Take, for instance, when the first VFP Conversion notice was posted and the flaming started. If someone had just tried to explain that, hey it's not for you but does me some good and I appreciate it, maybe those people wouldn't be so quick to flame Kevin on subsequent posts. This helps by not turning every subsequent post into a verbal war.

In both my conversations with Claude and Walter I tried to point out that Kevin's seminar is of interest to someone... me. That I am in support of Kevin posting the announcement here and why I would not have seen it otherwise. I also tried to point out that even though I may be attending VFPConversion seminar I have no plans what-so-ever in shifting our entire operation away from FoxPro. It just cannot be done efficiently in .Net. More importantly trying to show that just because someone attends the seminar doesn't mean they won't continue to use FoxPro. We also discussed interop and the very real possibility that the FoxPro - .Net relationship can be one of coexistence.

Now, hopefully, if and when Kevin posts another VFPConversion announcement I hope that they both understand the post is helpful to someone and does not exactly mean a threat to FoxPro. From this understanding I hope that they won't be so quick to flame Kevin and if they do, won't be so harsh. If that can happen, we are now working towards cutting down on some of this nonsense back and forth stuff that gets noting accomplished, besides getting people upset.

>
>Thru the years I have witnessed many comical statements. Probably the one that really sticks in my mind were the comments made about Marcus E. when he started posting comments about .Net here. Comments were made to the affect that there was a hidden agenda behind Code magazine. The magazine was started as a VFP mag only to get enough funds so they could switch to .Net.

I dont' want to comment on that here as it may stir up more arguments. I'll just say that I get the magazine, I like it and hold Markus in high regards.

>
>Folks are so threaten as the usage of VFP declines that they have become borderline "paranoid delusional".

I don't know if the usage of VFP is declining. I can't prove that and as I've said before, I believe that just because people use .Net doesn't mean they don't use FoxPro. So increased .Net use, to me, does not prove shrinking FoxPro use. I personally hope VFP stays around for a long while. I can't do, very easily, in .Net what we do in FoxPro on a daily basis. I promote interop and think it has a lot to offer. I think a developer well versed in both FoxPro and .Net is better off than a developer well versed in just one of the two. I tried to point out that the VFP - .Net relationship can be one of coexistence. I hope that if people can start realizing that using .Net doesn't mean NOT using FoxPro the .Net topic won't be so roughly objected.

>
>If you were to listen to the arguments made here, you would think it almost impossible to create a working application if you aren't using VFP. I find that extremely comical also. If you were to compare .Net and Java job postings to VFP, there would be a greater then 10 to 1 ratio. And as far as I know, these .Net and Java projects are succeeding just fine with VFP. Some of these projects fail, but for the same reasons some VFP projects fail.
>

Statements like your first two sentences are what cause the verbal riots here. I'm not going to comment on the .Net, Java, VFP ratio. It has been that way (VFP not the most popular) for almost as long as I can remember, but the community is still very active and thriving. So I dont' think that has anything to do with the price of cheese in China. Yes, .Net and Java applications do run just fine without FoxPro.

Aloha,

James

>PF
>
>
>
>
>>Just as I jumped in on Kevin's behalf disagreeing with both Walter and Claude, I am now doing the same FOR them.
>>
>>Both conversations have been constructive (I believe) and maintained a level of mutual respect. I don't feel they ever once "attacked" me. Point in fact, I know they are capable of having constructive conversation even if they have differing views.
>>
>>Claude, acknowledged he was incorrect about stating Kevin did not write the interop chapter (In fact, he stated from the beginning that he was not sure how accurate that statement was). I was under the impression that admitting you were wrong when you are should be supported. I always tell my son, "A man, when he is wrong, stands up and says he is wrong". Now, to start taunting someone when he's done that is not right. It is what leads to long drawn out name calling threads that only pollute the entire forum. Here in lies my interest, maintain the level of professionalism and integrity of this great forum and this great commuity.
>>
>>I understand that you may have a long history with both of them and that they may have taunted you in the past. I just wish everyone (Claude and Walter included) could treat each other with a level of mutual respect for the sake of not polluting this forum. In a healthy discussion when a conclusion can't be made it shold end in an agreement to disagree. Not in a long set of name calling, and a series of posts that call intelligence, character and ethics into question.
>>
>>I don't know either of them. I owe them nothing and have no loyalties. I'm just calling it how I see it.
>>
>>Aloha,
>>
>>James
>>
>>>Well,
>>>
>>>I wondered how long it would take you to crawl out from under your rock like thurber and campbell. Glad to see I wasn't wrong. When will you people understand that your snide personal insults have ZERO effect on me. I sit and laugh like crazy. The intelligence of a peanut, LMAO, that's the best you could come up with?
>>>
>>>I will chalk it up to your lack of understanding of English and its finer points of comprehension. If you re-read the thread, carefully this time, you will see that your cronies attacked Kevin McNeish and anyone who jumped in to support him.
>>>
>>>Really, I find this totally comical. Thanks for the comic relief. I would have expected no less from you and you delivered in spades.
>>>
>>>
>>>>John,
>>>>
>>>>Is this all you can benefit to the this forum? I've never seen you add anything to a technical issue at all. Instead you keep playing the american dumb *ss who rides the hype, has the intelligence of a peanut and cries for attention with stupid remarks.
>>>>
>>>>It seriously reminds me of another guy with the same forename. hmmm, maybe you are just the reincarnation of joe bob..
>>>>
>>>>Now please sit in the corner (with you donkey hat on) silently until you've got something constructive to say.
>>>>
>>>>Walter,