Ed,

At least you didn't let me down. I knew you were going to respond.

>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.

That's what i did.

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.

Why should I do YOU a favour, especially when you're talking about me this way.
If you're refering to my standpoint of software licences, we've discussed this all before; there is no need to go trough this again. You've got your standpoint, i've got mine: plain and simple.

>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.

I won't argue this. It's the way that John, is arguing and behaving like a jerk.

>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.

If I didn't accept the results I would not have written the message.

>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.

I'm rarely involved on topic where i don't have a clue on.

>Ditto - your 'technical' contributions are at best nil content.

Well, my observations of the rushmore technology, in particular the DELETED() tag was not a contribution to the VFP community ???? I suppose you're still indexing every table with the deleted() tag. Further on I suppose you did skip the messages about crystal reports ? Of course since we've got an excellent VFP report writer who needs Crystal Reports ? So my discussions with Jim Booth where not a lesson to us all, (not arguing about who was right or wrong, since much of these I consider a matter of taste) ?


I deeply respect your contribution to the VFP community in general, especially your knowledge in certain fields like hardware, WSH, C++, API etc, but this seems to have gotten you the attitude of knowing it all. Just saying that I have no clue about relation databases (I graduated to that subject), while you've no other argument than saying that you've heard CJ Date , speak in public (about what ???? having a cup of thea ?) and just saying you've got fairly solid knowledge of the relation theory. Sorry, I don't buy that!

You've made a few fairly big mistakes which degrade your credibility from my POV. For example being fairly rude toward Jim Nelson in a discussion about preemptive multitasking. Jim was right all along. When I came with a reference to jims standpoint you were too pride to admit you were wrong.

Also in a discussion about the usage of xbase DML commands you've showed to have no clue about upgrading to client/server. When I explained some of the options I never got a reply.

So, don't give me this sh*t. If you think you it all, you're flat wrong. Don't present yourself as an expert where you talking to someone who doesn't claim to be an expert to this field but knows better than the useless assumptions you make.

I'll guess that your problem is to admit that you're wrong (hmmm.. at least JVP did at times). And if you're proven wrong you either choose the way of being rude or not respond at all.

Sometime ago you suggested that I had a high opinion of my knowledge. Ed, if I had one, yours is even worse....

>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.

How about the VFP sits as a player in the rest of the world ? For your information, How I like to develop VFP only solutions I'm being forced to use other components also (like Crystal Reports). You clearly have not any clue what problems this generates when distributing hundreds of applications with more components than only VFP. This a really another subject, but if you're sitting next to the applications you support this might not be a problem, (causes can be determined quite quickly), but if all you've got is a phoneline, e-mail and an system administrator (or worse just an ordinary user which has still has problems to use the windows explorer) the story goes quite different. I presume you're not in this situation, since you clearly have got no clue)


>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.

Who is moralizing now ? And besides I've only gotten this message from you. Since I do not add any value to your opnion regarding this subject, not a chance.

Oh... b.t.w, just an opinion.....

Walter,