Kevin,

I was not intending to respond in this thread, but since you put my name in here....

First of all, John was banned for much more than that and you know it. And I was never one asking for him to get banned. So don't start this crap.

Seconds, John's knowledge was skewed and extremely biased which caused all the fuss up here. Seriously how could anyone with a straight face say that .NET1.0 was just as good with data and RAD as VFP? And also the fact he bought his MVP title with an MSDN article how to do ADO in VFP, ADO ?????? Then his claim that VB6 with SQL server was better than VFP - Sqlserver. He urged people to step into VB6 (yeah, thats right VB6).

And then he, like you, was making sweeping arguments that VFP is insecure because the DBFs (which are optional) are insecure (if no additional steps are taken). So VFP is insecure, even if it is using SQL-server as a backend?? Any .NET application can be as secure or insecure as VFP applications. There is simply not a difference here. Oh, yeah there is more to security than simply encryption. Encrypting your XML files is not going to make it secure. Like JVP, you're trying to compare apples with oranges and draw unsustained conclusions out of it.

Oh yeah, john knew something out of the box, but had a real difficulty to place that into the right context. He did not understand its place and perspective.

Data <> information <> knowledge <> Understanding






>Why don't you just lt this thread (and the one where you finally asked for the reinstatement) DIE NOW?
>
>You have decided to defend JVP (the child) against very manner of complaint rendered and, frankly, you are making an a$$ of yourself as you do so.
>
>Is your real intent to insert wedges into the UT/VFP community?... It sure looks ike it to me!
>
>This horse is dead for the third time. Let it go.
>
>
>Jim, this is about what I'd expect from you. What amazes me is that John got banned for statements like, "Walter, you have zero credibility", but yet you're allowed to get away with stuff like this. Perhaps the "powers that be" feel a certain level of philanthropy for some???
>
>
>I know for a fact that others agree with me....but are a little apprehensive (understandably so) about being unpopular with certain members here. That's OK with me. The bottom line is that more were OK with him coming back.
>
>The posts that have been provided that allegedly demonstrate John's behavior, only further reinforce the fact that some tended to react in a polarizing manner the minute John raised an issue that wasn't popular.