I am glad one of my posts to you has finally smoked you out. Thanks for replying.

>How have I changed the rules to "suite me?" Please be very specific.

You will have to take my word for the fact that I cannot access the original thread. If you can post me a thread number, I will revisit it, but, from memory, Jeff described a type or style of application. He didn't get into specifics about implementation details. You suddenly start bringing implementation details into the contest, like asynchronous threading, raising and responding to events - things that you are well aware do not "come naturally" to VFP. So, I suppose if you start adding things into the mix that you are well aware that Fox is incapable of, then clearly, you are "off the hook". This is a somewhat cowardly way out and I am pretty sure Jeff didn't bother to respond on that basis.

Now if Jeff had added that the application had to :-

1) utilise a true local database engine,
2) one that sported DDL/DML,
3) one that could be indexed locally,
4) one where the system could use macro substution,
5) and on the fly code execution,
6) and in-line SQL,
7) and in-memory cursors would auto-span to disk when required

then your little "additions" could have been deemed permissible. But Jeff didn't make any claims or demands or stipulations as to how things should actually work "under the hood" of the application did he? Jeff's challenge was, presumably about the end result whereas your challenge was not. Your challenge included "loaded" requirements that were development environment/tool specific.

OK, so why not add the above seven requirements into your challenge and see how you get on then? Chances are you would fail very miserably. So, yes Kevin, you decided to make a challenge hiding behind implentational details. That's why your challenge suited you - is my explanation clear enough?