>You seem to forget that the topic of the presentation was "Introduction". I was told that I would have 45 minutes. You can't address these things in 45 minutes and the certainly don't belong in an introduction....which is meant to present basic concepts.
>

Amen to that; I learned that very lesson trying to put together my session on pointers. I'd neatly thought it out into three parts, planning to give them 15 minutes each. Pointers On Pointers (the first part, virtually all theory) ran two hours; I could've spent two more on it. Pointers On Pointers II, which bui;t on the theory and showed how (in a very narrow sense) how to apply the stuff in CLSHeap to the problem, again without delving into a strong real-world example, ran another hour, and I still want to do Son Of Pointers On Pointers so we can see a real-world example with a structure more complex than my simple hypothetical Foo function, but that's gotta wait until after DevCon, and is probably going to run over an hour using the STARTUPINFO structure. So my 45 minute presentation is going to run 4-5 hours when all is said and done.

I did do much the same presentation for an undergrad class at SCSU, live and in person, and that ran over two hours. So it looks like the standard rule of thumb for estimating programming time applies equally well to presentations.

AFA ADO and n-tier stuff, I'm lucky; if I get stuck, I've got a couple of partners who've got this ADO stuff down much better than I do to fall back on. And at least one of them does a good job of presenting an intro to ADO cogently in 45 minutes, and could probably beat enough into my head in two or three hours to make up for missing Wednesday night's festivities.

I can't comment on exactly what was said, not having been there, and not knowing all the details of the underlying technology, but you've done nothing to hurt your image in this thread. I'd love to see this carried out in more detail, sans name-calling, finger pointing and ego-bashing. How does this sound - the transcript is going up on the wiki; if John has issues, build them onto the document, and let the issue get resolved there in public. Collaborative document building is what the wiki shines at, so maybe we ought to stop firing off pithy responses and innuendos, and get the meat on the table, where we can condense out the gristle and come to a resolution of the technical matter behind this whole thing. This thread is just too damned long to follow coherently.