>> You have thrashed people around by thowing ethics in their faces. Consider all of this as a taste of your own medicine.

Correction. I am trashing *you* around by exposing, in my view, your complete demonstrable lack of ethics. You seem to believe that I think this of others, that this is just a trend. Not true. It's just you, John. Get a grip.

You are entitled to your opinions, but I promise you that continuing to express views and innuendo that are fabricated and demonstrably false will be very expensive for you, both personally and professionally.

I am saying publicly, once again, on my honor, that you are a liar, an ass, and a scumbag. Do you want me to continue to demonstrate this? I can start by strafing you on each of the points below. Humiliating petard-hoisting bozos is really cheap sport, and I'm quite happy to bash you incessantly until you can't take it anymore.

**--** Steve



>>
>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.
><
>
>You think investing in VFP is less risky than investing in dotNET? Risk can never be obviated. The prudent person minimizes the risk he can control. With VFP, there is so much systematic risk involved. Given the choice where to make investments, I'll go with dotNET. Again, this is why I think Mr. McNeish is the smartest VFP vendor in the lot. He is stuck with making tough choices as he as said up here.
>
>I compare the downward spiral of VFP with the upward potential of dotNET. You want to analogize to disconted cash flow analysis, go for it. You want to try and quantify the unquantifiable and break things down to an algebraic formula, go for it.
>
>You know Steve, you INTL toolkit is great. It does what it claims to do. And while in some respects I think it is over-engineered, on the whole, I think it is a damn good product. To not invest the time to get it into dotNET, in an age where global applications will be common place is - to put it in a word - stupid. Of course, if you have been secretly doing this, then you are a hypocrite. In any case, your comments about dotNET and characterizing things in such a way that people are saying there is no risk is far off the mark.
>
><
>The facts are also that I have made no niche argument regarding diving into dot net.
><
>
>No, but you continually make the VFP is a niche market all the time. One could say the typewriter is a niche market. Niche, boutique, any you slice it, it is a euphemisim for something else...
>
><
>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.
><
>
>This is pure speculation on your part. And in case you did not know, speculation does not qualify for a fact. If you want to speculate, fine. But don't label them as facts.
>
>And btw, if my next meal did depend on it, you can bet your ass I would be able to pull it off.
>
>Steve, how many dotNET articles have you written?< bg >...
>
><<
>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.
><<
>
>No, I have been too busy writing articles...< bg >...
>
>
>
>>
>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.
>>
>
>You are the king of the non-sequiter. FWIW, I paid, but for some reason, the record got screwed up. Shit happens. Not that any of this bolsters your side.
>
>Tell me Steve, you ever work on your speed issues on the wiki??? < bg >.. In case you had not realized it, there is something a bit more robust than ISDN today. Also, how is your pan-handling for contributions going these days? Maybe you could take a few bucks, assuming anybody has actually paid you and re-invest it some decent hardware! A decent book I picked up was the Wiki Way from Ward Cunningham. I was surpised to see that your wiki was not listed in the book. I guess it did not meet the grade.
>
>You see Steve, personal insults don't cut it. The fact that there is a glitch with my website in no way has anything to do with this issue. I do find it amusing that you actually took the time to go to whois to look up the record. Man, you must be pissed! Yep, there is some 'soggy' thinking going on, but whether it is in your head or somewhere else, who knows....
>
>>
>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.
>>
>
>I like Rick, but as far as desktop apps goes, I don't consider him an authority. Web apps on the architecuture, that is another story. Desktop apps is not what he does. You know, there were those that said you could not build OO apps in VB. Those folks were wrong. I have played around a lot with windows forms and while there are some kludgy things, I am favorably impressed. Rick is entitled to his opinion as am I and as are you.
>
>I love the statement: you don't because you can't. Be careful about preaching absolutes Steve, with few exceptions, absolutes make for a dangerous road to go down. And fwiw, opinions are not facts.
>
>
>>
>Let me be perfectly clear: I have no plans whatsoever to update INTL or the wiki to run on dot net.
><
>
>We know this already...but thanks for being clear. I am sure when your customers move to dotNET, they will have no problem finding somebody else to service their needs...
>
><
>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.
><
>
>The last update I have on your docs is 1997, 5 years ago. Are you going to tell me that would have been a waste to target VB? Remember, outside the cloistered Fox world, it is "Steve who?"
>
><
>Remember, I am not the guy who advocated people should switch to VB6 because Fox is dead.
><
>
>I said folks should adopt and embrace VB, but at the same time, milk VFP for all its worth. And, for those that did embrace VB, they are going to be rewarded for that.
>
><
>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.
><
>
>News flash... if you think VFP is in a better situation than VB, your are sadly mistaken. VB's worst day would still be VFP's best day... As far as Fox never being better suited, the product has remained essentially the same for 5 years. Heck, you have not updated your product in quite some time. Your FAQ page is priceless. I would have thought by now, you would have put up a link to discuss why existing INTL apps won't compile correctly in VFP 7. Not that it is a big deal, but still, the responsible vendor makes the public aware of these issues...
>
><
>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.
>>
>
>Great, we are on opposite sides of the fence here; that much is clear. You, a vendor you is intent on being a luddite who has not advanced his product in several years who scoffs at new technology out of hand or me, who looks at the objective facts, the market place for VFP and sees what is going on. Well, based on the recent posts from MS on this forum, it would appear that my line of reasoning and the very things I have advocated have not met with deaf ears.
>
>Your point of view, a strong one, needs to be countered with an equally strong and perhaps stronger point of view. You have thrashed people around by thowing ethics in their faces. Consider all of this as a taste of your own medicine.
>
>You want to flame me back, you want a shot at the title, take your best shot. I'll be waiting...
>
>
>>
>WTF are you talking about?? You are confused an incoherent. You can't even follow an argunment. You are fabricating, full time.
>>
>
>Telling folks that if they are hyper-productive in VFP, that is what they should do. And if they are not hyper-productive in something else, they should farm that out. I am referring to those statements by you on this forum. It is essentially a macro economic argument; one that dictates that economies should concentrate on what they are most efficient at doing. Perhaps this was not your intent, but it was the result...
>
>>
>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!
>>
>
>Hey slick, get down from your ivory tower. My point is that your viewpoint is predicated on folks that make significant investments in dotNET now are making unwise and perhaps not prudent decisions. You have no basis to make that argument or conclusion.
>
>>
>In other words, again, I am publicly calling you a liar and an ass. You are a bona-fide scumbag.
>>
>
>Flattery will get you nowhere...< bg >..
>
>
>>
>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.
>>
>
>All of which are in check and sound. As always, I keep it real.
>
>Your move...