John,

>>
>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.

Well, I'd submit to you that this is where most of your contentions emminate from. Candidly You're quite correct in that you cannot change the bahavior of others. However, you can change your own behavior, which is IMO the issue here. I cannot change you but I can suggest to you that you're doing some things the hard way <g> and that I suppose you'll either take the uncaring path or you'll take the caring path. 'Caring' as in being aware of the communication needs of others.

I would also submit that your future effectiveness as a practicing lawyer will hinge greatly on your perceived ability or lack thereof in communicating. I would urge you to reconsider your position in this matter - for your own self interest if not for any other reason.

Dealing with other people can be more than trying at times that's for sure. <s> But, in the process you don't want to become like that which you do not like. IOW, by "stiffening" your resolve with respect to your being unwilling to bend in your communication efforts with others, particularly if it is based upon your perception that they aren't listening, are unable to listen, uncaring, etc... you only become like them. Your determination to communicate how YOU think is the best way precludes you appearing to your listener/reader as someone who would rather hear themselves talk that actually make sure the recipient is hearing/understanding your message - which is the whole objective to begin with.

You then end up in shouting matches and "you said", "you said" kinds of processes. I only point to the most recent spate of messages for proof. <s>

What you decide to do is indeed your own business. Being smart enough to know when to take advice also is as well IMO. <s>


>
>
>>
>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.

Hmm.. Well.. With respect to VFP II'm not sure it means much either way - which is my point. You are indeed correct that once the license is sold the revenue stream stops but that's true of VB< C, C++, MASM and all other development languages I believe.

The underlying assumption here is that Microoft must have a constant stream of revenues to sustain itself. In that we'd be in total agreement. MY euphimism for this is that they are "top feeders" and as such will naturally have less interest if products like VFP. I can live with that candidly as I think that VFP has an enduring place in the panoply of MSFT products. Will it ever rise to the level of VB or .NET? I doubt it. Can it be an effective and productive 'player' in the .NET sandbox? Sure. Can VFP today provide services and speeds .NET developers are still only dreaming about? Sure. Is .NET a great platform? From the looksof it it surely is!

I guess I don't see the need for VFP to have to go away for .NET to flourish or visa versa. I see them as wonderful complimentary products - each with a stated purpose, ability and goal.

I must admit to scratching my head a little at all the brouhaha.

>
>
>>
>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.

Not the community - Microsoft itself. Look, CA and A-T both effectively killed CLipper and dBASE, particularyl compared to Microsoft's moves with FoxPro. Did the community help? Sure, but with out the ongoing committment on MSFT's behalf to fund continued development....

As far as the level of influsnece some folks want, well they're just plain unrealistic IMO. But, I think that sword cuts both ways, which is my general point.

>
>
>>
>All you and I are doing is speculating....
><
>
>My only comment to this is No comment..< bg >..

Oh please... <g>

And, yes, I know soem 'behind-the-scenes' stuff too. So what? Nothing's of enough import other than to satify the gossips and social climbers, neither of which I am particularly impressed with. <s>