>
Neither. what bothers me most is that you and some others NEVER give MS a chance to express their true position on specific matters!!!
<

But it is not my chance to give or take away. How am I taking away MS's chance to respond?

<<
You (and those others) come up with some 'answer' and the ONLY time that MS might be compelled to step in in such circumstances is when you (or those others) are patently wrong. Not being wrong doesn't automatically make you "right", but it does allow MS to remain silent when you are not patently wrong. This hurts us all because we do NOT get the true MS position on the matter under discussion!
<<

Fine... then I suggest you posit this question to Ken:

"Does the position JVP and others articulate accurately reflect MS's position as far as VFP is concerned?"

Whether you like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not, I have pretty much laser beamed on MS's position in re: VFP.



>
It makes a HUGE difference!!! Yours is, at best, an interpretation/theory/guess. Theirs would be the FACTS. With FACTS in hand we, as a community, can discuss options and take action. With your guesses in hand, especially combined with your need to repeat them over and over again, we can only remain inactive listeners.
>

I contend that what I posit is not only fact, but observable fact. Perhaps the most important fact is that MS has not countered the position. The EASIEST thing for MS to do is counteract what I have said, assuming that what I have said is false.

>
Not quite - you are providing your interpretation and embellishment of Ken's/MS' statements.
>

Am I? Perhaps interpretation, but not embellishment.

>
Why should they when you are not patently wrong??? You may have the correct objective but be way off base as to the actual reasoning. We (the community) would like to know the real reasoning! OR you may be way wrong but MS elects to stay mute because this is a new avenue for them to explore.
<

Interesting. Assuming you had the reasoning but the outcome was the same, how would things be any different? You have lost your wallet...whether you left it in a taxi or on the plane, the fact remains: you have lost your wallet.

FWIW, I have outlined my guess as to MS's reasoning: 1. they want developers (all developers) to migrate to .NET. 2. investing in Fox/xBase does not go to realizing the objective set forth in # 1. It is not a big secret Jim...

>
If you said that MS will announce the end of VFP support at the end of August I would expect MS to quickly counter that statement. If you said that MS will discontinue support for VFP some time in the future there is no need for MS to respond. But there is no need for such a statement in the first place, yet you continue to make it, adding a 'sooner rather than later' qualifier to it.
>

I have said, as has MS said that "there is no desire to grow the VFP market". That is pretty much a black and white statement. i.e., there is no gray, no area for interpretation...


>
No, you gave him YOUR response. The same response that you give everybody all the time on the matter. WE KNOW YOUR POSITION. The guy knows your position! Enough already!!! Let those who wish to explore improving the future of VFP do so. There is no need to constantly crap on such attempts.
>And no, Ken will likely not come here to refute your statements, even if they are inaccurate.
>

As long as the question is asked, I will respond in kind.... And FWIW, if my statements were inaccurate, Ken would come up here to refute them... Again, it would be the easiest thing for him to do...

I am right on this...and it pisses you off (and others) to no end that this is the case....

As for the future of VFP, I did my part...I am the one who came up with naming the next version Toledo... < bg >...