>
I think others are picking up on your use of words like the one I mention above and perhaps taking umgrage at them, themselves presuming something you do not intend to convey. Perhaps you should revisit your use of the language as opposed to the actual content you're trying to convey. Typically I've never had any problems whatsoever with your general assertions - rather I've sometimes been put off by the abruptness of your language. I've often teased and cajoled you regarding this in the hope you'll come to understand the differences between the messenger and the message, so to speak.
>

I have long since abandonded the idea of trying to word things in a way that could not be offensive. FWIW, I don't think the way I have worded things can or should be taken as offensive. IMO, the converse is true; that some folks are over-sensitive and look at the messenger as opposed to the message.

I am not in the behavior modification business. Folks can deal with it or ignore it. The choice is theirs.





>
Perhaps, and I suppose it would provide a corrolary point of reference for more accurately determining what is actually being used.
>

As far as VFP is concerned, do you think it really matters? With VFP, the earnings process ends the moment the product is bought.


>
For goodness sakes, you'd think that in ten years of Microsoft ownership they would have had ample time and reason to kill the product had they actually been only interested in gutting it (like many said they would 1992) for the technologies like Rushmore. Microsoft's a lot smarter than that IMO. They saw a good deal when they got the developers as well as the product.
>

There is no question the community has kept the product alive. I have said before that Fox's legacy and influence is felt in a lot of places at MS. And given what is likely to occur with VB .NET, I think Fox still has some influence, just not the influence that some want.


>
All you and I are doing is speculating....
<

My only comment to this is No comment..< bg >..