>Nancy (said with dander UP),

Dander up? Not at all. Just the usual tiresome discussion. Offering solutions? Or just sniping? Some adult figure at some point in my life taught me that in business you never go to your boss with a problem. You go to your boss with a suggestion or two for a solving a problem. That's my guiding light.

>>Call me simple-minded, but it would seem the first order of business would be to update the docs. Communicating that changes have been made could be 1) a logical absurdity (how much time do they spending communicated what changed vs. changing the docs) 2) the same process as communicating what's changed in the product upgrades (seems to be an already working model).
>>
>Not simple-minded at all, but surely ridiculous. You take a simple statement and play it out in a silly way.

Silly? Thanks, Jim, but I don't really think my suggestion was silly, but, hey, that's just me. If the docs could be beefed up, why _not_ have interim releases? You immediate dismissed the idea because, I understood, nobody would know what changes has been made. I countered that assertion with reasons, and instead of discussing them on technical merit you call me silly. Okey dokey.

>Is there some new standard that I'm not aware of that says that making a critical remark about anything MS automatically means crapping on the VFP Team??? If there is, I need to know!

I think your implication was quite clear that there wasn't a savvy person reviewing the docs. That's bogus. There's ways of pointing improvements w/o impinging the professionalism of the people doing the work. But, hey, again, that's just me.

>Look, the things that I have come across inspired the stipulation of "knowledgeable". I can only say that if, indeed, that person is knowledgeable, then they are sloppy.

Maybe. Or they might be overworked, or they might not have had enough time with the product locked down to write, or the team may have had changes, or there *might* be a combination of factors including sloppiness. In no way do I see that it's useful to pass judgement on the state of a system you cannot know. It +is+ useful to point out improvements.

>And what difference has it made if VFP-knowledgeable people did read the docs??? Errors, omissions and confusions still abound, so they obviously had no say in having them corrected.

"so they obviously had no say in having them corrected" is a leap of inductive reasoning, Jim. A bit of a stretch and not much better than a conspiracy theory.

>>Did you file bug reports? How the heck do we file bug reports, anyway?
>>
>No, I haven't filed a bug report in years. And, frankly, this "problem" (I don't categorize it as a "bug", personally) would take far too much of my time to do a job that should have been done in the first place.

Okay, then I guess it's not really that great of a concern.

>As an alternative I tried keeping a Word document open and copy/paste to it as I found errors and stuff. That didn't work because I was most often deep into a real bug (of my own) and I simply forgot to do it. I think that a Wiki topic would have the same problem (existing or not). At least with annotation I would already be on the error page and a few extra key-strokes would let me note it THEN. Later (weeks) I could collect them and do something with them.

What about my suggestion about the Wiki topic? You wouldn't have to do the work all yourself and it would be persistent and public. Of course, that might actually be putting effort into a solution....*drvvvf*