>
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.
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only