JVB: I think at times, your advice has the effect of trying to hold others back. Telling people they should not dive in is bad advice. Folks should be able to make up their own mind. The niche argument you have been making as far as VFP is concerned is flawed. Steve, you may be 1 of 1,000 VFP developers who is sitting or who has sat in a real nice position of ringing the register the way you do/have. Not everybody is that fortunate. When I think of VFP's position in the world, I think of the average person who has to struggle to find that next contract, to struggle to get VFP in the door.

I am advocating that people should consider the facts. The facts are that people should not assume zero technology risk, as you are constantly saying, even today. The facts are also that I have made no niche argument regarding diving into dot net. Another fact is the person behind the advice, you, could not code his way out of a paper bag in dot net, and that you couldn't create a dot net application install CD if your next meal depended on it. The person giving the vanguard dot net advice, dear 'ol JVB, is seemingly incapable of adequately answering even one single technical question on the subject.

Moreover his website is down, dues unpaid to the registrar since April 18th, and the one single trivial download that purports to show credentials to lead a vast group of nameless clones into the future is thus unavailable at this time. Those are the facts.

How do you square what you say with what Rick Strahl says: dot net V.1 seems good for web apps, and dissapointing for desktop apps. The answer is you don't, because you can't. Those are also facts.

When it comes to ethics, I don't think you are very clean yourself. Personally, I think you have sold a lot of people a bill of goods that you have to work overtime to support up here. And, as a vendor, you have a pecuniary interest like any other vendor and you most likely have a biased view like most vendors who have not taken the time to update their products to .NET.

Let me be perfectly clear: I have no plans whatsoever to update INTL or the wiki to run on dot net. Over the years I have heard lots of advice from clowns everywhere that INTL should be written in VB, and that the wiki should be written in .ASP. Remember, I am not the guy who advocated people should switch to VB6 because Fox is dead. The fact is, VB6 is dead, and Fox has never been better suited for the sorts of applications that I write and the sort of customers I have. Is this true for everyone? Certainly not. Why, then, are you advocating exactly this: dot net is a great choice for anyone who can hear your voice. I'm of the opposite view: it is clearly not. You seem incapable of grasping this basic nuance of life, which is horses for courses.

SB: Name the weasel. If you can, support your point.

JVB:It's you of course..< bg >... The economic arguments are lame. To use a macro economic argument that is based on countries specializing in what they do most efficiently (ag. countries specializing in ag and exporting ag and importing manufactured goods, etc) simply does not apply. ...

WTF are you talking about?? You are confused an incoherent. You can't even follow an argunment. You are fabricating, full time.

Developers should be intent on picking up new skills and learning whatever and whenever they can. To apply your logic, Kevin McNeish would be making the biggest mistake on the planet.

Again, WTF are you talking about? When have I ever said anything to the contrary? I live and breathe to diffuse skills and create value for other developers. You insolent ass! And furthermore, what makes you think for a second that I think this about what Kevin's doing? YOU INSOLENT ASS!

In other words, again, I am publicly calling you a liar and an ass. You are a bona-fide scumbag.

This is not an ad hominem attack. It's a clear and direct questioning of your ethics, your integrity, your skills as a software developer, and your intelligence.

**--** Steve