>Thanks for your very full reply, which makes some very valid points.

You're welcome.

>I will try to make my comments brief.
>a) I may be wrongly ascribing characteristics to Craig, but they are based on the quality/tone of his reply. This is the only way I have to judge him, as I do not know him.

I think that, given its brevity, it would be a bit difficult to come to any conclusion about the person who posted it. That bothered me greatly.

>b) People obviously put a lot of effort in to achieve MVP status. Do they have to keep that up, or is it a badge for life. If the effort goes down, can it be taken away, if not, it is meaningless.

I believe that achieving MVP status often reflects on the quality of the person. In general, it's a "labor of love". You've got to like, or at least want to help others.

It's not a badge that you wear for life. You are evaluated yearly (usually, this past year it happened twice for me and some others last year) by Microsoft Support professionals. You have to be both active in the various on-line communities they monitor, and your responses must demonstrate a high degree of technical accuracy. There are MVPs for quite a number of MS products besides VFP, including VB, VC++ and so on. I'm not exactly sure of the number, but I think that there are around 50 or so VFP MVPs.

There at least used to be a site where more information was available and it used to be accesible through the UT main page. Unfortunately, that link is no longer there.

>c) I judge people as individuals. In my first reply, I had not noticed MVP status - I don't know what it means, if anything.

I thought you did.< s >

>d) I did not pre-judge, it was based on a specific reply. If you knew me, I would take offence at being called prejudiced (I assume that's what "predjuiced" means - another American spelling ?), as you don't, then your view is largely irrelevant. But, what are your reasons to call me prejudiced, are you ascribing characteristics to me that aren't there based solely on my postings here ? Why do you feel it acceptable for you to do that, while it is not acceptable for me to do so ?

If I made my point badly, I'm sorry. I was trying to point out that if you were judging Craig as a person, and were taking his MVP status in account, then you would be pre-judging him. When we (and I mean anyone here) do things like that, it's definetly negative. I assumed that you weren't. (As for the spelling, don't know).

>e) As to Craigs reply, I felt no need to ask the reason "why", I knew the answer. I didn't add the reason to my reply, because I felt that it was Craig's responsibility to provide the information. Also, by adding my interpretation of what Craig meant, I may be totally wrong - only Craig knows the reasons behind his reply - it may have had nothing to do with Windows guidelines, for all I know, he doesn't know they exist either - it could have been pure chance that his particular view of how something should be done matched the guidelines & there may have been different reasons for his statement.

There's been some discussion around about people feeling that if they ask one particular person or another a question, they open themselves for some negative feedback about their technical abilities. No one should be made to feel that way.

I think, and I may be mistaken here, that the fact that the was mentioned "Windows User Experience" as the source of the UI guidelines. It's part of the MSDN Library (which is freely available to all registered VFP users, BTW). As I noted previously, however, I hope that the basic premise that "it's the user's" computer is well known. If it isn't, it certainly should be.

>f) My views on the "inner sanctum" were based on many other replies, not just this one. The religious allusions were based on the preceding reply, but I would probably have used them anyway

I think that Shakespeare may have said it best. "The evil that men do lives after them. The good oft interred (sp?) with their bones." Threads that may have a negative tone probably stick out and remain in mind. The one's where someone has needed assistance and gotten it quickly and accurately, too easily forgotten, even though they're in the vast majority (IMO).

>I accept that I have probably judged Craig too harshly. But I still stand by my argument that his first reply was lacking in information & had the air of a proclamation. My reply was simply adding my view, as a newcomer, backing up the comments of another respondent. I have obviously hit on a sore point, just looking at the number & content of the ensuing replies, so I get the idea that there may be more than a grain of truth in my view. Why is there such a sensitivity in a newcomer stating that the group appears to be more of a small, exclusive clique, rather than an inclusive community ?

At one time or another, we were all (with the exception of Michel, of course< bg >) newbies here. Craig went through it before I did. I went through it before John Koziol did. John went through it before Larry Miller, and so on. I can't speak for anyone but myself. When I was new here, yeah, I was a little intimidated by some of the people here. That, however, was no fault of theirs, it was all mine. I think if you'll give the place a chance, you'll find as good (and as bad) a group as you'll find anywhere else.