>>Aside from the contempt you have shown John, you have shown immense contempt for all MVPs, especially those you named. You have also put into doubt the MVP status of anyone that you awarded MVP status to this year - all you can say I that you saw some of their posts, if anyone asks where, you can't direct them all you can say is that you saw them. No evidence, just your word for it.
>
>I think it's really important to keep in mind that the MVP award is granted for past service, not for the present. That is, when people received the award in the fall of 2000, it was for what they'd done from fall 1999 through summer 2000. There is no requirement that the recipients continue to provide support or that they continue to do it in the places where they had before.
>
>Tamar

So what you are in fact saying is that MVP has no meaning at all, other than at sometime in the recent past you were helpful.

If it works how you say, then how come it is reviewed on a regular basis & can be taken away. What is the argument against lifetime MVP status, when MVP status only means that at some time in the past you were helpful.

It would seem to be in the interests of MVPs, if the letters are to mean anything, that information is available as to where they can currently be found. If they don't want to be found, then they shouldn't accept the MVP status. One of the reasons behind the scheme is so that Microsoft can provide free technical support, so after highlighting the volunteers who are prepared to do that, it seems odd that they can't let people know where that support can be received.