>Come on now, John. Something is 'legitimized' just because one thinks it is?

What's legit to you may not be legit to me, and vice-versa. All I am saying is that if a tool is right for the job, it is legit to use. If I did not think VFP had a legitimate purpose, I would not program in it.

To say that VFPDA would bring legitimacy on VFP in the eyes of those who don't think it is a legitimate tool is pretty far reaching IMO... All I ask again is, how would the org propose to do this.... You, nor anybody else has offered 1 shread of objective, sound debate on that topic....

>Many feel that MS is well under way in the de-legitimization of VFP. You accept that status, and that's fine. A large group here do not. Why do you feel so compelled to rain on the parade? You can just ignore it you know.
>

Jim, don't put words in my mouth. Personally, I don't agree with how MS treats VFP. I am on record with that. I however, also understand what MS's strategy is. VFP unfortunately, has a real identity problem there. It is not a matter of how I feel. It is just what is......


>I know, you are the business guru of the UT, just as you've shown the lawyers here that you are the lawyer of acumen and majesty here, just as you've shown that you are the preeminent designer/developer here. I don't doubt that you are the worlds best gardener, writer, pilot, psychologist, etc. etc.
>

Settle down Jim. No need to get personal and subjective.. Rather, please take an objective stance and make a stab at answering the questions I have asked about this proposed group...


>Please, just let us plebes play out our little game without all this Brooklyn Bridge nonsense and without all this holier-than-thou crap that you are so fond of. It's truly getting most tiring.
>

If it is a game, it is a tremendous waste of bandwidth then..... To the credit of others here, I think they are pretty serious. I will give them that. I just don't think the whole idea is all that well thought through... Then again, to each his/her own...