>We're not in court and this isn't a pleading. Save your lawyer speak for the courtroom.
>

It is the basics of arguing and making points Craig. You made a statement of fact. I asked you were you got your data from. You stated it was the result of your experience. Personally, I think you are mistaken. Fox has never been used nor sold by MS as an end-user tool.

Are there people that are pure end-users of Fox? I suppose. Are there huge numbers? I don't think so. Why do I think this:


1. MS marketed Access as the tool for end-users.
2. MS, when they were marketing Fox, it was marketed as a Dev. Language.

There is a big difference between saying something such as a catch-all phrase as "my experience.." and using a logical basis to conclude such as the points made above.


>Gee John, for sometime you've been touting your experience with VB and how because of it, VB is better for many things. If you can't accept someone else's experience, don't spout yours.
>

I was not the one throwing age and years of experience into the mix. Talk to your "partner".


>
John, once again we come down to a matter of opinion. I said "HUGE", which can be interpretted to be any number. To some people 10% is "huge" to others it has to be more than 50%. Don't try to quantify something that is totally subjective. And, as usual, you have done nothing to demonstrate that my statement was incorrect.
<

What is substantial? 51% can be construed as substantial. More likely than not...If you think it is subject, say so. Here was your comment in its entirety:


Keep in mind that a HUGE number of Fox 2.x users were really end-users. In this case, Access makes sense.


Where in this statement do you say it is just your opinion? Nowhere. Had you done that, I would have let it slide. But you do this sort of thing so matter of factly all of the time. It ticks me off.

Why don't you spend time getting your company website to work.....????