>
Ken stated 'the future'. You turned that into VFP 8.0 specifically. See the difference?
<

Question, what is the future of Fox?
Answer: The next version (8) and beyond.

Since 8 is not here yet, it is neccesarily in the future. It is therefore encompassed in his statement. However, I get your point in that Ken could have meant that the beyond 8 is a big question mark.

>> His statements that SP's were only for bug fixes was wrong.
>
>
No, it is a statement of policy- only an MS rep is qualified to make such a statement. The fact that history shows an SP that did not adhere to current policy is irrelevant.
<

Erik, if one is going to make a policy argument, then prior violations of that policy are anything but irrelevant. Lack of adherence to a policy calls that very policy into question.

As far as an MS-Person being the only entity qualifed to make a policy statement, I agree with that. However, when the person makes a policy statement that contradicts past practice, that is now an item that all can comment on.

Tell me, have you ever criticized the US foreign or domestic policy? Only a gov't offical can say what is/is not the policy. Once that happens, anybody can comment on how the policy squares with the record.

Therefore, I do agree that statements of policy are neither incorrect or correct. Rather, they are merely a statement of what is... With that out of the way, the door is now wide open to debate the issue on policy grounds. I don't agree with your relevancy argument however.

Certainly, one can interject his own opinion as the merits of a given policy in light of other, far-reaching issues and history. That is what I have done and I am more than qualified to provide such commentary.

< JVP >