>John,
>
>Can you stop these childish comments, please ?
>
Walter, John's entitled to his opinions on the aspects of the quality of the magazine's output, as an author of articles, a reader of the magazine, and someone who participated in the editorial preparation of the product. It's not an issue of his critque being invalid, his not giving FPA a chance to respond, or his tone being abusive and improper. I'd suggest keeping your far less qualified commentary out of it; he's been in the trenches on this from all sides, and you have a clue from none of them, except perhaps as a subscriber (I don't know, or particularly care to know, if you subscribe). If you have an informed opinion, feel free to express it. If you have an uninformed opinion that matches your (in my opinion) lack of consistent application of ethical evaluation of the rights of authors to intellectual property, do me a favor and keep out of the line of fire. This technical discussion of the directions and failings of the publication should be debated by people who're well informed on the topic; I'm not, since while I subscribe (and am incensed at the lack of quality in the content of the magazine) I do not know what their editorial policy is, or the management directions set by the magazine. Neither do you. If you're unhappy that a magazine that you feel represents the market you address is coming under fire, state that as a subsciber you like it, and then get your head down and let the people who have more of a clue about what is going on inside the magazine talk.
You've stated your uninformed opinion, so stay out of the line of fire if you don't want to accept the results of standing in the line of fire.
>Some notes.
>
>1. You've recently talked about S/N ratio here on the UT. I strongly find this in the category noise.
>
>2. This article should be in the chatter section where it belongs.
>
>3. I'm pretty sure no-one is interrested anymore in your show of being an asshole.
>
This certainly applies to my view of your participation, so that would apply equally well to your expositions on topics you've got no clue on.
>4. You've always liked technical correct anwers, since i've never read any technical correct answer from you outside the VB and ADO area, please stop to compensate this with this soap series.
>
Ditto - your 'technical' contributions are at best nil content.
>5. Compared to the number of messages your contribution to this forum is literly .NULL. and you're accusing FPA of not giving enough value to the VFP community ? let's document all your messages of the last 6 months and let's see which gives more technical VFP info !
>
JVP lots, WM, lots less.
>6. What in the world gives you an idea that you've got the right to be so inhuman to all people who disagree with you ?
>
Not agreeing with your point of view does not disqualify JVP as a human being. His style of criticism may not be as genteel as you'd like. Might I suggest a visit to Rent-A-Clue before next visiting the topic of speculaing on the genetic heritage of a contributer here?
>7. What is your problem john, had a bad child hood ? Why do you want to stir up things here ? Are you hired by the VB team to break down the VFP comunity so VB is taking over the VFP marketshare, being a trojan horse ?
>
No, he just calls them as he sees them, and has a strong sense of moral outrage, as opposed to espousing situational ethics and being a major source of disinformation. YMMV. John's already stated that both VB and VFP have a place in the scheme of things. He has a more appropriate view of where VFP sits as a player in the VS game than you do. Your ongoing lack of insight into the valuie of developing using other than monolithic, VFPp-only approaches is well-established.
>I'm getting pretty sick of your 'critical' comments here and i know there are lot's of others too here but are afraid to speak up. So please be quiet or leave like you've threatend to do to many times, without actually doing so.
>
I'm tired of your moralizing when in fact you have no ethical or moral foundation to stand on. So please be quiet or leave, like many of us have wished you'd do for a long time.
>Others have tried to say this in a friendly manner, but since you don't care or have the Emotional IQ of a beetle, I thought this was neccesary.
>
At least he has the mental capacity of a lifeform with more intellect than a decerebrate mollusk. I thought that pointing this out was important.
