>>>>Jim,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your input. The thing that's most amazing to me is how many 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.
>>
>>I'm sorry if you find this a diversion from http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~ShouldVFPBeInVSDotNet, but as I said in my reply to Mike Feltman on that page, I think you've got your priorities mixed up. These are two totally distinct, but related issues. Here's the relationship: if MS continues neglecting VFP marketing and promotion, the question of the box becomes inconsequential. If MS puts some earnest effort into marketing VFP, it will do just fine, in or out of the box. So either way, getting worked up about the box seems unnecessary. I have no argument with Robert Green's point that, all other things being equal, VFP will be able to do a better job promoting itself outside of the VS box. Fine, so we can defer to Robert Green's judgement on that point, and the question of the box should be a dead issue. But being out of the box won't be nearly enough if all other things remain equal. My beef isn't with Robert Green, it's with the people who set his budget, or who are in
>some
>>way denying the VFP product group a fair share of Microsoft's marketing muscle. I don't see how we can expect Microsoft employees to be overtly supporting this cause, because they are in a delicate position here.
>>
>>We're all tired of beating this marketing horse to death. No one can blame you for believing that yet another effort to influence Microsoft's attitude toward promoting VFP is just a hopeless waste of time. I'm not sure I really believe we can do it either, but maybe this time will be different. I don't think we can afford to fail again. If it does turn out to be a waste of time, it needn't have wasted even a minute of your time. It seems to be implicit in what you said that of course you agree MS has been doing a lousy job of marketing VFP, but you just don't think we'll be able to affect it. I don't read that as meaning that you're opposed to considering putting your name on such a letter, so why not just say Yes, I'll consider it. If you like I'll introduce a new weaker subchoice: Yes, but I don't think it will work. That's good enough for me, how about you?

Oops.. this one has the intended reply:

You insist on implying that if large numbers of people sign an open letter MS will be persuaded to spend money marketing VFP *this time around*. The way I see it, it's MS product and it's MS money and no matter how much we rant and rave no money-spending decision will ever come out of this.

Again, if RG's comments are any indication the only issue before us that we *might* be able to influence is the decision to include or separate VFP from VS. The marketing issue is critical, but I don't see how an open letter helps things there.

I have no problem in you and other people that have added their names in pursuing the noble effort, just don't get upset when people don't go along. Your implication that we need an excuse for not agreeing with you and that my opinion is a "weaker subchoice" tells me that you are riding a very high horse at this time.