>>PMFJI, I can't speak for George, but I don't believe his intent was to get you all worked up. Your sarcasm aside, I would think that on a forum dedicated to Foxpro that what George expressed would be the voice of the majority. Just my two cents worth, but this thread seems to be getting unnecessarily harsh in places.
>
>Jump in.
>
>Ok ... what makes George qualified to speak for the majority ?
>
>And what "disqualifies" me ?
>
>You seem to know something I don't; what is the criteria ?

My primary intent was simply to bring attention to the tone of the messages, not necessarily whether I agreed or not. But, since I did say that I thought that the majority would likely agree with George, I owe you on that. We're talking about foxpro developers who have done things within the Foxpro envirionment as it has existed for many years, I would expect there to be more support for that than for an entirely different foundation. I never said, or implied, that I personally felt one way or another about it; just that I thought the majority would agree with George. It's simply an opinion. Again, my primary intent was that I find the sarcasm and harsh tone unnecessary to debating and discussing a topic. Takes away more than it adds. R