Mike,

>> There are many more qualified candidates than myself to author such articles,
>
>There are more qualified candidates than myself to write articles as well, but they still seem to publish my drivel in various places. Make it technically accurate and let the editors sort it out.
>
>>However, I can't in good conscience encourage someone to undertake this kind of writing at their own expense, while Microsoft persists in conspicuously omitting appropriate mention of VFP at every turn. Those omissions undercut the whole effort, suggesting that one's time would be better spent looking into VFP alternatives.
><snip>
>
>It simply will never be enough, will it, Michael? You complain that your conspiracy theory is proven by the lack of VFP articles in MSDN magazine, and when I call your bluff, you say you couldn't encourage someone to write an article for that same magazine. I don't know why I waste my time reading these threads.
>
>> I appreciate your suggestion and offer to help get some articles published, but I'd rather you exerted all of your influence on the editors of MSDN to elevate VFP from the MUCH, MUCH MORE category to an explicit mention by name.
>
>If there aren't any VFP articles, this will never happen. Start typing.

As I said to Evan - Thank you!!

I'll bet some of these folks will see your response as stonewalling, not standing up fopr VFP, which is what you're doing... <g>