>>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.

I've never said it was. Remember that Fox existed long before the merger took place. However, it doesn't matter if either company marketed Fox as a developer or non-developer tool. The fact remains that many non-developers used Fox on their desktop to store and retrieve data.

>
>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.

Once again, Fox existed long before it became an MS product. How it was marketed has nothing to do with it. How it was USED is what we're talking about here.

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

But you're the one who is saying the years of experience mean nothing. I'm going to take you at your own words now John. Show me in a non-subjective way why VB is better for n-tier applications than VFP. Remember you made the claims that VB is better (OOPS there's another subjective word) for n-tier data applications. Now, the ball is in your court to quantify this.

>>
>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.

Note that I didn't say "substantial".

>
>
>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.

Well John, as for "ticking off", you've ticked off a number of people here...and it has been stated publically. The fact is, "HUGE" is subjective in it's nature. If I tell you I have a huge pile of dirt in front of my house, that does nothing to indicate exactly how much is there. And then again, how would huge be measured? Would it be the height from base to top? The distance around the base? The number of cubic feet? Even then, what I interpert as huge is different to what you or anyone else may intepret as huge. By it's very nature, the word huge is nothing but opinion and does not have to be prefaced with someone saying "IMO".

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

What does it matter to you if it works or not?