Sorry Ed. (BTW that's an apology). I've just re-read the original post, and it is now clear that your intention was to clarify the (SendMessage) situation with John Jones (and any lurkers) and not with Mike Stewart.
>

No problem (that's an acknowledgement of receiving an apology and considering the matter to be closed.)

>RE: "undesirable and unneeded" - I did not imply, intimate, (or choose your own synonym), that was the case. Merely that your post (and only the concluding paragraph) "seemed" acerbic. I still think this is the case. And unless I am some sort of imbecile, also a little ambiguous as to the intended recipient. I now feel thoroughly enlightened to know that "having discussed it with him in person" you are sure Mike Stewart knew what he was talking about. Alas, I and anyone else following this thread, cannot mind read, and are not privy to these facts. Your help is much appreciated, desireable and (in most cases) needed!
>

I've noticed that several people have taken exception to my responses recently; that one wasn't just acerbic; it was intentionally sarcastic, meant to be interpreted as such, a recommendation like RTFM, but on a broader scale. Regardless of whether I've spoken to Mike about the Windows Message environment relative to VFP, it's obvious that several people have seen my answers as being inadequate and in at least one case to have been deliberately dangerous and posted as intentional disinformation. There's also a developing, frightening tendency to believe that including some magical, completely uncomprehended calls to the mysterious force of the Platform API will cure all ills and restore youth, health and vigor to misbehaving code. Yes, the Platform SDK does offer potent and extensive solutions to issues that may not be easily address with native VFP operations, but I suffer under the shameful belief that to use it, you need to understand it a bit. I've got an attitude about tha...

I try not to intentionally mislead people, even when I'm being venemous, acerbic and derisive. Once in a while there's a real temptation to give an obviously incorrect answer to a poorly statement, misunderstood demand for a canned one-line solution for a diffucult problem, like a reference to the mythical PITA.DLL that really should be a part of the repetoire of a few developers...although I generally resist them temptation. Most of the time, it's better to give no answer than an intentionally wrong one (no humorous intent).

>"I'm certain that you can ensure infinitely greater understanding" - tut, tut, such venom.

It's clear I'm not getting the subject explained adequately in many situations; if my responses leave something to be desired, I expect the people pointing that out are offering to do a better job... < g > the preceding is intended as humor)