>Jim,
>
>Jim,
>
>Thanks for your input. The thing that's most amazing to me is how few of the people who ARE active in UT, wiki, and usenet have been slow to jump on the bandwagon. I've been trying to understand what excuse anyone could offer, other than being a Microsoft employee. I guess you've put your finger on it - a fear of "rocking the boat" or giving offense to MS and incurring its wrath.
>
>I don't think that times have really changed so much. It's just that a confluence of events have come together at this particular moment - the festering boil has been pricked. We have nothing more to fear, because our backs are already to the wall, and nobody has to get hurt. This isn't about ridiculing Microsoft or whether their .NET effort will succeed. If anything a little diversification will help to protect Microsoft from the risks inherent in a strategy as ambitious as .NET. But it would be a distraction to talk about .NET, over which there is plenty of disagreement, when there is one thing every self-respecting VFPer I've ever met in my life would agree upon: that Microsoft's non-effort to market and promote VFP is pathetic and dumb. Maybe I haven't chosen exactly the right words, but that's the gist of it, and I'll wager that you would be hard pressed to find any other non-religious issue upon which such a large, diverse population would agree with such unanimity.
>
>Leave it to Microsoft to do the extrapolations. The only number that really means anything to me is the count of names on these two lists: Yes, or No. If you actually know a VFP programmer who isn't on the net or isn't aware of this poll, just ask him or her this: may I put your name on a list of those who would consider signing a letter encouraging MS to do a better job of marketing and promoting VFP? You can feel free to put the names into the wiki page yourself, or just post a reply to this or one of the usenet threads. Let's make it as easy as possible for everyone to be heard. It's is just an informal poll, but I have more faith in the validity of this procedure than I do in our last presidential election. And when it comes time to see who's willing not just to consider it, but actually sign a final draft, you can rest assured that there won't be any dimpled chads obscuring a clear interpretation of the results.
>
>Mike
>

OK, here's mine: because it's just a diversion from the original question posed. I don't see how that page is adding to the argument, let alone what is the expectation of this effort.

The marketing horse has been brought to life and beaten to death so many times here that it might just be the reason why people are not jumping in the "bandwagon".

If Robert Green's recent messages here are any indication, we should all vote to take VFP out of VS, which takes us back to the original question. And I'm not trying to persuade anyone, just my opinion.