Hello Tamar,

>I don't think it's appropriate for me to discuss internal magazine matters in a public forum. If you look back, you'll find that I've never done so, regardless of who started the thread.
>
>I welcome anyone's feedback on the magazine, though I think sending it to foxpro@advisor.com is more productive than posting it here. (Yes, I know you sent yours to the magazine as well. That was a general comment for others following the thread.) The decision-makers at Advisor don't generally read the UT.
>

While I wouldn't argue the appropriateness of discussing FPA internal issues here I would think it would be in FPA's best interest to post your response to JVP's concerns.

This is probably the largest daily gathering of FPA readers and I think FPA owes at least an explanation. I feel there are credibility issues here if you just ignore the technical concerns that were raised.

Maybe the article wasn't meant to dive that far into the technicalities. Maybe the author didn't have the time to put into the article. Maybe that is as far as FPA cares to go with outside technologies.

Anyway, as you frequent the UT and the "powers that be" at FPA don't maybe you can relay some readership concerns.

Talk to you later.