2) Even more so, I am highly offended by others trying to censor what is apropriate for me to see.

Don't allow yourself to be victimized by paranoia - it's not censorship. For some of us the "syntax brand" is determined by the requirements of the project. We don't wake up before we meet with a prospect and say "viola", this project will be developed in Brand X !!

There are these preposterous medication commercials on TV that suggest the viewer should go to their doctor and demand this or that medicine. There can also be preposterous threads that claim to save your career.

If you have a chance, read the "I hate being right" article,message #1003578. You might leave with a conclusion similar to mine. Success is a measure of mastery. By "just" focusing on "syntax brand" we are over simplifying what software development is all about.

The VFP paradigm is broad. Some of us have only a superficial understanding of how to use it - or any other development tool - for that matter. If the project is not a clip and snip IDE and the majority of code goes beyond the realestate of our editor - the drama becomes unbearable - and we begin to think - "I wouldn't have this problem if I switched to Brand X", or alternatively, "At least if I can convince my boss to switch brands, I will not have to explain mt lack of production for at least a year!"!

There are more import concepts the geek mill should push as opposed the current menu of platform survey seminars or "syntax brand" conversion bandwagons.

Learning something takes months - not days. The most important subjects might very well be those that do not require a computer to learn.

We have to improve our rudimentary skills and we have to learn how to work with objects that developers outside VFP are forced to work with everyday! VFP is a great tool to do that. DOT N would be a horrible tool to learn the basics of OCX or ADO!

I issued a challenge to a DOT N pitch a few months back - it was a little VFP program with a few OCX controls. The thread protagonists pitching DOT N conversions were pronoucing [again] VFP as dead and anyone still working with it "has their head in the ground". Yet as simple as that challeng was was, they had to eat their hats - they could not convert it.

Someone on a thread tells us they want to show us how to convert big VFP projects to DOT N, yet they could not convert a little VFP program to that same DOT N paradigm. Of course they had "good" reasons, BUT:

They posted the thread with a big claim - but could not provide a small proof. So - you have a thread, pitching a brand and a conversion service. Is that misinformation? Was the thread useable or necessary when the facts are they could not convert a little 30 KB VFP form?

Just because a thread proposes itself as a usuable path to sucess and understanding of a particular "syntax brand" does not mean it can deliver the goods. It's misinformation. And there is no way to soft show around it. Don't confuse VFP developers that challenge the voracity of particular offer as the mad ravings of a cultist "head in the sand" VFP dry drunk. If a posts makes a case then it should be able to back it up. Its your job, our job to test the voracity of any such claim.

I like software development. It gives me a chance to surprise myself! I get to compete - I get to chase the notion of perfection. I like strangers tickling the keyboard to an application I developed - I like the way that cute Barnes and Noble clerk looks at me when I buy a hard bound copy of "Java Servlet Development"!