>>I don't need to cite other reasons Mike.
>
>Need...can; whats the difference?
>

I don't need to...


>>Your analysis is too complicated Mike.
>
>Naturally.

That was not a compliment Mike...< s >...If your analysis is too complicated and hard to follow, it is most likely flawed and incomplete..< s >...

>
You are suggesting that companies should actively and intentionally make their toolkits and code bases redundant? I suppose that makes sense. To you VB.NET types its called "richer". Though, with IT spending where it is, I don't think that will be a very popular suggestion.
<

You VB .NET Types????? Tell me Mike, how do you explain the popularity VB has enjoyed so far? Do you think it is magically going away??? And FWIW, I do think with/endwith is a rich feature to have..< bg >...

I guess YAG, Ken, and the like are VB .NET types too...< s >...


You are really beginning to take this personally, aren't you?