I will agree that a lot of the posts were presented in an antagonistic manner towards the end of threads, but they seldom deviated from the point he was trying to make. To be fair, I read many more negative and argumentative comments made by folks towards him (and it was typically the same few folks) than from him towards others. Often, it was the others reacting to his posts who made the first comment that I would actually consider 'out of line.' Also, whenever he made any comment even suggesting that VFP was not always the best tool for the job or suggesting that the lifetime of VFP was not that long down the road, he was virtually swarmed on with verbal admonishments and attacks. It was a common event here on the UT until the final end of VFP as far as the supported lifecycle was publicized. There were times when developers posted questions on how to meet business requirements that really could have been handled better using dotnet or another tool (lets be honest - there are a few out there) and if anyone suggested that here on the UT they were pretty much attacked for making the suggestion (other than a couple of people who seem to be given carte blanche).


>Kevin, I think this is a good example of the "trouble" that many people found so exasperating. The original sweeping allegation was that Fox cannot provide the security concerns necessary in modern development. Rather than acknowledging that the statement is unsustainable, a flurry of other issues is raised, with the implication that the target does not realize/agree with these obvious facts. When combined with various ad hominem slurs to trivialize other viewpoints, it seems designed to provoke a negative response.