John,

In case you hadn't noticed, I am not only "threatening" < sic > you, but I am actively carrying out the implementation of these "threats" < sic > to make sure your fabrications are not unchallenged, an that this exposure will not be without steep personal and professional expense to you.

Call it what you like. I imagine being repeatedly and publicly exposed as a fabricator and a liar would seem like a a "threat" to the one being exposed. I can understand that. Sorry you feel this way; you are the author of your own misfortune.

So in other words, I am not threatening you, I am actively carrying out what I have promised to do, which is whup your sorry soggy thinking in full public view. It only feels like a threat because you fancy yourself beyond such reproach.

>> JVP: When I want to direct comments at you, I have in the past and will do so again in the future.

Liar. In the past you have always initiated snide remarks about me by being oblique, like a slimeball, and it's usually only after someone forwards me the reference that I find out, upon your admission, that you're talking about me. In this case, do you claim that you're not referring to me??? Who are you referring to, Joe Bob??? Let us see if you have any integrity, any guts.

>> JVP: So your response is to make a threat. Instead of that, why don't you take up the issue and make your case why Fox can be and why it should be marketed and what the probable results of those efforts would be.

You insolent ass. In stark contrast to your notion of "making a case" which, to you, means just declaring something bogus, I've have made this a public, open, and peer-reviewd discussion for some time now.

In my view, this is a brand marketing issue. VFP's marketing problems are in fact a brand marketing problem. If there is any merit to this (and much to the chagrin of Joe Bob, there clearly is) then there are things that can be done to Improve the VFP Brand.

>> JVP: Personal and professional threats are not productive and will only serve to backfire on you. Don't be so paranoid Steve, believe it or not, everything I say does not pertain exclusively to you. Instead, you could back up your premise with some objective proof as to why your ideas hold water...

Please see the text of this reply and all the links above, Joe Bob. I'm surprised that you conclude that this is backfiring on me. Over the years I've been pretty good at calling a spade a spade. You're no spade.

>> SB: The utter lack of supporting evidence for your stunning broad conclusions below is notable. Please explain yourself, O great arbiter of reality, O great marketer.

>> JVP: Lack of evidence? Are you really saying that no objective evidence exists to support the premise that VFP cannot and should not be marketed. It should not be marketed because it would not be cost justifiable. Spending millions of dollars on an unsuccesful campaign is the quickest way I know to end existence of the product.

That's complete soggy nonsense. Of course one should not spend millions of dollars on unsuccessful campaigns. Duh! One is advised, rather, to spend marketing resources on sensible marketing campaigns, those that can achieve measureble goals. From the wiki links above we can see that one such measurable, achievable, and seemingly sensible marketing goals is to educate Microsoft field reps about what the strengths of VFP are, and not to make false or fabricated statements about the product. (Something you know all about, and how easy it is to sink to that level).

By the sounds of your recent posts, this would not be a resonable objective. If this is true (and coming from you we never know what's true) then please, tell us, what would you suggest and, if possible, provide us some insight into your tactical analysis of the situation.

>> JVP: Perhaps 7 years ago, the story would be different. But the fact is, VFP has been going up against VB for all of those years; with lots of help from MS.

You're delusional. The fact is VFP has been going up against VB and everything else made by MS and other vendors with very little help.

>> JVP: Now, dotNET is on the scene, Is MS supposed to do an about face and promote VFP over and above dotNET?

To date I think your are the only person suggesting anyone is saying this. Are you saying this? Who's saying this? If it's such a stupid statement, what are you saying it? Why even bring this up? This is silly.

>> JVP: The only thing that signgiicantly differented VFP from VB was the fact that VFP had a data engine and a languge to go with it. One might think it was the object model and OO. If inheritence was *that* important, VFP would have won out over VB. The fact is, folks can and will get by without inheritance whether they stick with VB 6 or jump to dotNET. Of course, if inheritance is in the box, one would be foolish to not incorporate that feature into the product.

Well, isn't this tangential, and largely not relavent to this discussion? If so, why bring this up? What are you saying? Can we agree this discussion has nothing to do with inheritance, and nor should it.

>> JVP: What would the likely fall back position be? My guess is that MS would start with VB 6 and incorproate OO. This is pure speculation on my part, but I think that is what the fall back would be. Pratiucally speaking, dotNET WILL succeed. In theory, it could fail, but in a world where the devotion of money and resources makes a difference, it won't fail. There may be bumps, but it won't fail.

Er, again, I think the discussion is rambling... you're wandering aimlessly here... Can we agree that this is off topic?

>> JVP: Therefore, if one is reasonably assured that dotNET wont fail and that as well as SQL Server is where MS is focusing its energy as far as dev tools are concerned. The past 7 year trend for VFP is crystal clear. Why you or anybody else believes there is a single upward trend or one that could be created is puzzling. Instead of speaking in abstract and theorhetcial terms, why don't you speak in practical real world terms. Looking at the facts, you will see that such a contemplated effort is an excercise in futility.

Er, looking at the facts, I think I'm the one speaking in practical terms, and you're the one who's not given much thought to the whole notion that VFP is a great tool and could benefit from sensible marketing investment.

As for exercises in futility, reasoning with a pathological liar such as yourself is an exercise in futility.

**--** Steve