John,

>Doug..
>
>As an attendee, I asked a follow-up question. Am I no allowed to do that?

I have no trouble with that whatsoever John.

> The purpose of my question is just that - to facilate getting information out to the community. As the presenter, I am giving Craig the opportunity to address a question in detail that was for a lack of a better phrase, blown-off last night.

Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps Craig simply didn't have the time John? Or must everything be cast by you in your mind in moral tones? You presume knowledge of Craig's motives that he, in his mind, had a less-than-honorable attitude towards someone else. This is your error.

What baffles me John is whether or not you are even able to understand what is causing you so many constant negative responses. Look at what you just wrote in the above sentence; you presumed a negative attitude in Craig and then asked a question based on your presumption. I dare say that neither you nor I are God and you make a very grave error when you approach folks by pidgeon-holing them with your presumptive attitudes. You may think you are being clever or smart or whatever. You are not. You are being presumptive and condescending. This is what is getting people all riled up and it is in my mind absolutely amazing that someone so smart is so stupid in this area. This will, IMO, be a constant source of grief for you friend.


>
>I suspect that if anybodyelse asked this question, this way, you would not be giving them grief.

Anybodyelse [sic] wouldn't normally presume what you have presumed. However, since you brought the issue up I will only remind you that about 6-7 years ago on the CompuServe forum I tore into Jeff Winchell for doing exactly what you are doing here. You were around then weren't you? You do remember your statement to me several months back about how much respect you had for folks like me and the late Tom Rettig who helped you out when you were first getting started with FoxPro, don't you? Do you remember Fabian Pascal as well?

Sorry John, you aren't quite that special yet. <g>

>
>And FWIW, I have volunteered to do a 2-hour presentation on this very topic next week.

I think that's great!

Now, since you are obviously going to suffer the same time restraints that Craig did I will presume that I am free to presume (based on yoor sterling example) that you will obviously not meet the needs of someone and then pin your ears back since you also are not perfect?

>
>No transparency here.

I'll state again what I have stated before... I have no quarrel with your technical expertise whatsoever. For a relative newcomer to the community you are bright but rude IMO. Don't complain because you are reaping what you have sown John.


>
>< JVP >

DD