I'm so sorry my post read that way to you Hugo. I wasn't directing my comments at you in anyway. And, though he can speak for himself, I don't think that Craig Bernston was directing his post at you either. They were general replies to the basic concept of "pitching in", not in anyways a disparaging or disrespectful remark towards you. I've had the pleasure of reading many of your posts here on UT and you always come across as knowledgeable, professional, and in support of VFP and the community that surrounds it. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding and the <g> is always sufficient for me.

>>I couldn't agree with you more. I can't count the number of times I've been in a discussion in one of the VFP Forums, here and elsewhere, and I chatting away with someone who is really bemoaning the state of VFP. Then about 15 posts later, I find out that they are still using VFP5, VFP6, or VFP7... and involuntarily my eyebrows raise up and my upper lip does this contorted Elvis impersonation. <g> (yes, I realize that there are the few exceptions that don't have access to the upgrade for good reasons and even if you are using an earlier version the overall perception of VFP can have a direct impact on your business)
>
>Well, just for I feel you are directing those words towards me (and is just my feeling, I might be wrong, but after all you are agreeing with the guy that accussed me of not having chipped in for the VFP 9,upgrade), I will clarify that we are using VFP 9 since almost the next day it became available for download, thru MSDN subscription, we upgraded quite fast to VFP 8, before that to VFP 7, we only were slow upgrading from FPW 2.6 to VFP 6. Furthermore, I've never critiziced the state of VFP, I was just making a joke, a simple, bad and stupid joke, as all the jokes I use to do, I thought the <g> would be suficient to understand that.