Feel better, Terry?

Now please tell me where Kevin did any of this? When I look at his original post -- and follow up -- there is no hijacking, no "painting the board," no bogus thread. This was a simple announcement. Nothing more. To suggest more (and get this worked up about it) is to believe that Kevin, Rick, Marcus, et al are the Pied Pipers to our lemmings/rats/children.

Seriously, where is this coming from? This ugliness started with the usual complaints about the UT being anything but a "VFP uber alles" forum, and has blown over to outright slander against Kevin and other MVPs... complete with made-up, vague, and hearsay "quotes." Can none of you see the forest through your overreactions? Are you so frustrated with VFP's direction you'll take it out on anyone who doesn't toe the VFParty line?

Ask yourself this question: If this were a "VFPConversion Seminar to..." Access, or DBase, or Paradox, or Approach being advertised in this forum, would any of you be in such a lather... or would a few snarky comments suffice? Why does a .NET conversion seminar -- even one advertised here -- have so many gnashing their teeth? Are you really that threatened?

We're better progammers/developers/architects/people than what we're displaying right now. We know it. Let's prove we know it.
---J

>Maybe others will get the message! This is, after all, a subscription board whose primary purpose is to advocate and grow a market for VFP. This is not a pay-for-use board for the promotion of DOT NOT. Sell DOT NOT someplace else - don't hijack this board (over and over) and then cry when the "negative biases" make themselves known.
>
>My concern is that strong (or weak) developers like the great and gone JVP and his disciples were "painting" the board against VFP for their own gain. In the equities market, painting the board is a situation where somebody buys a bunch of low quality stock at a high price to lead the market to beleive that the stock has more value than the market gives credit for.
>
>You get a bunch of DOT NOT evangelicals - who like the rest of us - are looking for income sources - to start some bogus thread about DOT NOT conversions and this or that about DOT NOT being better than VFP (especially when they flunked the RIO test!), and then using those responses to shop VFP shops for conversion work.
>
>"Look here what VFP developers are saying about DOT NOT - even they are saying it's dead!" Those tactics are in bad taste - so we defend against them!
>
>Don't market with "conversion" services - just go out and pitch DOT NOT. I do not market conversions - I market solutions - the DOT NOT crowd should start it's own UT area and figure out how to market DOT NOT with out trying to sell our hard earned customer base on the demise or death of VFP.
>
>Besides - If I owned a vertical SW company - I would do what the big boys do - send my CLRs offshore and get the best value for my buck. All that is happening at Quade, at least in my view, is that the DOT NOT conversion team is going to replace the CAN NOT VFP team.
>
>THe VFP guys should have just stayed up late and learned DOT NOT and just did a [complete] rewrite. Quade is not the only place those conversions are going slow. A DOT NOT SHOP head quartered here has been trying to deliver the project for over three years now (despite the fact they promised in seven months). I did the same project for another company with VFP in 8 months. I will be replacing (not converting) the DOT NOT undelivered project with my VFP solution in the next few months.
>
>Its not the tool - it's the quality of the work product and devotion of the developers. Better to just learn NOT - and quit pretending that "conversion" from VFP to DOT NOT is a goal based in reality. Just take the raw specs and re-write it from scratch - there is nothing in a VFP program that can be re-used by the DOT NOT Object!