>Sorry, not trying to get at you, but I did read the original as a serious question on the viability of VFP & full as it is of people with an interest & varying levels of expertise with VFP, I thoiught it was a valid question & the obvious place to ask that question.
>
>If I was wrong, & the question was just to sow doubt about VFP, then I agree that it does not have it's place here.
>
>Apologies again,
>Paul

Everyone is encouraged to post any (complying with UT rules :-) questions here, and this question was valid too. And I hope, my answer was also valid, sometimes style of post can imply more than words.
Surely, there is no any reason for you to apologize. I fully respect your views.
Cheers.