Sorry George, I can't agree here. (I've not quoted your reply, to save bandwidth).

No problem.

I wasn't using Craig as an "example", Craig was the specific reason for my original post. He made a statement of fact - "thou shalt not do this" - with no word of explanation, just accept it as gospel, because of who I am. There was no indication of whether it was based on opinion, experience, prejudice or anything else. I did say what Craig didn't mention, namely his reason for his statement. All I can say is, what did Craig contribute - nothing.

First, let's look at Craig's post:

"This is something you shouldn't mess with. The user should change that in control panel."

This isn't something that's based on any of the thing's you mention above. Further, it isn't something that hidden away in the depths of the SDK or in the "Windows User Experience" book in the MSDN Library. It's based on a very simple and, I would hope, widely known premise:

It's the user's computer, and they should be the one to make this determination.

Personally, I hate software that doesn't respect my right to set up my computer the way I want. Novell's Client 32 insists on mapping a drive for me that I don't want mapped and the only solution was to use Microsoft's client.

Craig does indicate this (the user's computer) in the second sentence. Perhaps not strongly enough. We could debate about back and forth, on whether or not the premise is widely known or not, or if Craig indicated this strongly enough and gave enough information. In the final analysis, it comes down to a matter of opinion and we're each entitled.

OTOH, I've seen people (members of what you call the "inner sanctum") critized for warning others about issues, for not giving the questioner enough credit for knowing something far less well known. In short, folks have been "damned if they did and damned if they didn't". The bottom line here is that people are being taken to task for trying do what this place is supposed to do: Help people. We can each only try our best.

My big problem with what you said in your paragraph above is that, intentionally or not, directly or indirectly, you are ascribing characteristics to Craig that aren't there.

I really don't care how you get to MVP status, it is irrelevant to what I am saying - just because you put letters behind your name, it does not make you god. In my opinion, it makes it all the more reason why you should back up your statement, after all, you've put the effort into getting the covetted 3 letters, so you should be able to explain your statement.

No argument, but if more information is required, there's nothing stopping anyone from asking for it. Further, just because someone has achieved a certain status, doesn't make them perfect. We all make mistakes, but leveling a criticism at someone who does make a mistake just because they've achieved that status isn't right either. I'll tell you flat out that my own expectations of myself are plenty high, and I would feel that it's categorically unfair for someone to criticize me because I failed to live up to someone else's expectations.

Your jutting in to defend Craig & Cindy is only making matters worse. As I said - the "inner sanctum" closing ranks to defend themselves. It just seems that the two people I have criticised really do not feel able to justify themselves to me.

Yes, I consider Craig a friend, but it has nothing to do with anything like the "inner sanctum". It was nothing to do with anything other than I thought and think that you were being unfair in your characterisation of Craig either directly or indirectly, intentionally or not. I've done this before when I've felt that this has occurred and will do so again.

You also say that you wouldn't criticise an MVP, unless your relationship with them led them to know your were only joking. So if they were obviously wrong & you didn't know them well enough you would keep your mouth shut, just becuse of three letters ? If they are using those letters as a badge of knowledge, then they must accept the responsibiluty that goes with it.

Unfortunately, I didn't express myself very well here, so I must apologize for that. In fact, MVP or not, what I try to do is "light a candle rather than curse the darkness." I've criticized MVPs and non-MVPs when I felt it was warrented. I've done this both publicly and privately However, in cases of an error of omission or incompleteness or even complete inaccuracy, I tend to post a addendum or correction to the original poster. With those I consider friends, however, I'll give them a playful shot to say, "Hey, you know better than this". I also make my intention very clear by using an emoticon.

One thing here that bothers me is that is seems that because Craig has the fact that he's an MVP in his signature, you linked him, intentionally or not, with a segement of the UT that you don't like. Further, that this has been done in a rather short time frame. Rather than judging him on the bulk of what he's contributed or your own interaction with him, you've judged him based on the fact that there's that "MVP" thing. The same seems to be the same with Cindy.

What you've done is pre-judged him because of that. The word for people who "pre-judge" other people is "predjuiced". In this case, rather than it being race or religion, it's due simply to the fact that Craig's an MVP. Frankly, it's one of my buttons. I've seen it in many forms and have no use for people who, rather than judging someone on the quality of the person, judge them on something that is, afterall, quite superficial. I can tell you, based on my personal interaction with him, that this world would be a whole lot better of if there were more Craigs in it.

It seems that the argument here is that if you can't add anything, then shut up. Again a bad attitude. I may not be able to improve on a bad answer, but I can know when an answer is bad, should I keep my mouth shut, or should I point out that although I don't know the answer, I know the reply is wrong.

Why not simply ask, "Why?" No one is telling you to keep your mouth shut, but if you find an answer lacking, why not ask for details?

In this specific case, Craig gave no information to back up his view, so no-one really was able to say why he may or may not be right. This is my entire point -certain people, often with 3 letters attached, feel themselves in such a position they can make a statement which must not be contradicted or questioned. If its a matter of saying 1+1=2, then maybe you don't need to explain, if it's to say that although it's possible, you must not change the colours of disabled buttion, then how am I to know why. It may be MS's crap s/w which crashes if you change the colours, it may be because the colours happen to be your favourites, it may be because the colours are chosen for people with certain disabilities. Unless Craig gives enough information about his reasons, then it impossible to add to his reply, either for or against.

But rather than asking for the reasons, you simply critized. If, for whatever reasons, you felt his response was indequate and didn't know what the correct was, then by leveling the criticism based on this rather broad "inner sanctum" business, you link Craig to it. You pre-judge him if you don't ask the question, by feeling that because he's got those three letters attached you won't be treated with dignity and respect. I think that, if you had asked, rather than just blasting him, you would have received a response that would have not only answered the question, but would've demonstrated that he isn't part of what you don't like here. Say what you will, but Craig made an attempt to help. He tried to "light a candle". You didn't. There's no denying this.

All you have managed to do here is confirm that this is not a comunity, it is a small clique, with several self-appointed experts. MVP is just 3 letters - it has no meaning outside it's own small community of other MVP's - all it says is that you accept one company's view of how things should be done.

Why? Because I defended a friend, who I felt was wrongly lumped in with the elements here you don't like? Someone who has contributed a great deal to it? If so, guilty as charged. I've a number of friends, some of whom are MVPs, most of whom aren't, who would take issue with this.

Let me, however, tell you something about what I know of some of the MVPs, including Craig that inhabit this place.

By and large they are as nice a group of people as you could ask for. They make their contributions here not for any purpose or reason other than they like to help people. Sometimes they do so without any acknowledgement or fanfare. There's no return on the investment of their time other than some one who posts back with a "Thank you."

A little more than a year ago a couple of these MVPs anonomously paid for PUTM memberships for people they felt made a significant contribution to this community. I can't name them, but I know who they are. Was Craig one of these people who did this? Again, I can't say either way. What I will say, however, is based on the type of person Craig is. That's the type of person he is. That's the type of person most MVPs are. They good people making a sincere and honest effort to help their fellow human beings.

If you give us the chance, if you judge us based on us as individuals, I think you'll find the same thing to be true.

I have no argument with anybody I have replied to, all I am trying to put across is a relative newcomers perspective on this small group.

Len, I've tried to respond as graciously as I could. If I've failed, I'm sorry. I think, however, that you need to look at us as individuals rather than a group.

Regards,