>
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.
>

Romanticize the past all you want... As you imply, the record speaks for itself...

>>Please, don't say that on one hand, you try to stay away from opinions and

>
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.
<

People undermine their own credibility. I simply compare and contrast the facts. Go back and see some of the exchanges with Ed and I think you will find I was not off base. Here is an example:

Ed used to unmercifully draw issues out when they could have been sucinctly answered in one short post. I contend he did this to boost his message count. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Otherwise, back off...

Not only did he draw things out, it was often an inapproprate or a far from optimal technique. At first, I was nice about it. But after a while, it got quite annoying and yes, I took a scorched Earth approach to solving the problem. In the end, he stopped throwing out bad advice an issues he did not have a clue about. Remember, the ratio and quantity of tecnically correct posts is what counts.