[...]
>>>The contributions of an MVP should provide real VALUE. I believe the people that choose the MVP look at more than just the frequency. Naomi's posts were numerous because she had an unfair advantage, but IMO they were rarely as technically important as the contributions of MVPs.
>>
>>Unfair? In what way? Do you presume she had special privileges in the search engine? IF that was the case, then this was only true for a while. And how about Sergey then? He's probably the ultimate master in searching for previously discussed solutions.
>
>Naomi apparently spent her employment hours and was basically paid to search out information to spread to others. Many cannot afford to spend their time time in this manner.

So that's what you call unfair?! I think it is totally unfair to call this unfair. 'Numerous' is one of the checks that MS makes and as far as I know they don't check in what conditions that was done. Suppose my wife complains about me staying up so late, only to answer peoples questions, would that be an issue for MS, for you? Come'on, that's none of their or your business.

But sure, they look at more than just the frequency. Your opinion is that her posts were rarely technically as important as the contributions of (well-established I suppose) MVPs. MY opinion is that her posts often show good solutions that solve the problem at stake. For many people she gave the answer they sought for. And that's enough in my eyes in order to be tipped to MS. Or are you implicitly saying that we should not tip her to MS as a prospect for the MVP status ... BECAUSE of what happened lately?!


[...]
>I don't approve of what's been done, but IMO MVP is not about how they act, but what they know.

And I think she knows enough and is very willing to share that knowledge.


[...]
>>>Conversely, I feel sorry for Naomi. I know she doesn't have a lot of self-esteem and have told her to toughen up before. She even asked me (privately) if I thought her statements to Marcia on MSDN (I think?) were inappropriate. I concurred with the webmaster that it was not her place to criticize Marcia's (or for that matter) anyone's posts.
>>
>>If you are here referring to the thread where Naomi told that Marcia's solution was overkill, then I disagree. That remark of Naomi was a quite relevant comment, esp. for a technical forum.
>
>I and the webmaster disagree with you. I often site solutions that are "overkill". What most programmers do is underkill, IMO. Simplest example:

That webmaster knew/knows *nothing* about VFP! He was not knowledgable enough to decide whether or not it was a technically relevant answer. So, it's 1-1, not 2-1.

[...]
>>>Naomi, Andy and Marcia harmed the VFP online communities by dragging the communities into this dispute. Employers must now be thinking to curtail access. That hurts every one of us.
>>
>>There's this village. They do not have police. A woman gets raped in the park. She knows the rapist Since there's no police, she tells it to the neighboors. Later someone accuses both the rapist AND the victim of having dragged the community into this dispute. That's how it works, but that's not how it should work.
>
>Your unbiased opinion, I presume. If a woman (to use your analogy) spent her time walking in the park instead of working and someone reported her for it, who is at fault?

Depends. It depends on the motives of that 'someone'. But here's one for you: The woman got raped in that park at midnight. Who's at fault?