>>
>Again, a taste of your own soup. Remember Edward Pikman? One fine day you thought yourself as the higher-standards-savior of the UT and blasted Ed for his answers. Everybody else but yourself thought he was helpful. It went on for several days until he chose to stop participating here.
>>
>>(anyone who wants to know Edward Pikman's record here can refer to the top 50 posters report in the VFP forum)
>>
>
>I will definitely take this one head on. Ed was an MVP who got based on a large number of posts. His accuracy ratio was very poor. No question that at times, he did give good advice, but more often than not, it was bad. As an MVP, I thought it reflected poorly on the MVP award that a guy with bad technical accuracy could get the award. I was not the only one who felt this way. And in the end, I prevailed. If I am not mistaken, the esteemed Jim Booth agreed with me on a number of occasaions on line. Unlike Jim, I was vocal in my dislike of what I saw going on. After a while, it seemed like anybody who generated a lot of posts, whether they were good or not, became an MVP.
>

I don't believe Jim came in to add to your claims that Ed wasn't on the level for an MVP. It's been a long time but I think Jim objected to Ed's constant referral to those who were his friends, to what Jim said he was not one of them and possibly even said he was friends with you. I could be wrong, as I said it's been a while. The nice thing about the UT is that we can always refer to the archives to see what went on.

And I do not agree he had bad technical accuracy. He might have been "old school", FPW2.6 & VFP3 stuff and the like, but back then there was a lot of questions about things that hadn't changed in VFP3 and VFP5.

>Please, don't say that on one hand, you try to stay away from opinions and then state stuff like this. It is clear that you have a fair amount of dislike for me and for what I say. You do a poor job of hiding it.

I don't think I stayed in the sidelines back when this happened. I remember clearly stating my dislike of the situation to you and others. I'm just saying now, a taste of your own soup.

FWIW, to your credit you have stayed "clean" in this latest comeback, but the old technique of trying to undermine the credibility of whomever disagrees has stayed the same.