>
No, you're making it complicated. Acceptability is just one of many cues that contribute to peoples's assessment of productivity. Acceptability may loom large for you, but I can assure you it does not for everybody. Eg: the 55-year-old FP2.0 developer whose 1990 application is used by a thousand mom-and-pops and still returns $250,000 a year having made her a millionaire several times over in the last decade. Her definition of "productivity" does not even include VFP7 let alone its "Acceptability". Who are we to judge?
>

One one hand, you say I am making it too complicated. Then, you go on to say that acceptability is one of MANY cues that contribute to assessment of PRODUCTIVITY.

First off, the acceptability point was targeted at the tool - not productivity per se. So with that, let's stay on point...

However, going down your path, if acceptability is one of many cues, how then can you boil it down to one thing - that being productivity? Seems to me that to properly analyze, you need to break it down. Seems to me that trying to absorb it as one big chunk, that is the complicated way to go. Seems to me that it is far easier to break an issue down into smaller, more digestible pieces..

>
If you can't find a job in VFP and having a job is how one is productive, then you are not productive. So you move. Which is what I said. Lets not make this complicated.
>

You are limiting yourself to the economic definition of productvity. I was not being that narrow. Rather, I was looking to the more broader concept of being capable of producing something. It would appear however that we agree in that one should move onto something else if faced with this scenario. Fair enough..


>
I said to ignore the slogans, soundbites and general FUD that some people produce and see what is left and consider that. I do not see how you would extrapolate this to advising people "not to listen to others". I'm advising people not to listen to FUD. People can decide what is FUD and what is useful for themselves. Surely we agree.
>

If you tell people not to listen to FUD - whatever that is... - and further, providing your own examples - are you not creating a definition or at the very least, a framework that others should follow? surely, we do not agree...


>
I'm saying that intelligent people always have and always will be able to make up their own minds about what they should do, based on their own values and their own environment.
<

A statement of fact.

<
Trying to say today what one will be doing in five years is an exercise in crystal-ball gazing IMHO.
<

So in your opinion, it is an excercise in futility (EIF) to plan for the future?


<<
Maybe you knew in 1995 that you'd be in law school this year but I'd suggest that few others here find themselves in that particular situation and you should not extrapolate.
<<

Who is extrapolating? Certiainly not me. The biggest falacy committed is to ake 1 example and super-impose it on the world at large.

<<
I'm sure you would agree that somebody who declares that their answer and only their answer is correct for everybody, risks being consigned to the realm of clinical "delusions of grandeur" or religious bigotry. Not looking at anybody in particular when I say that.
<<

For the most part, I would agree. However, I would also submit that there are opinions from those more infomed that have more credibility and as such, should be given more weight..

< JVP >