>George
>
>You may recall in 1999 I dared to observe apparent life memberships for some MVPs, also a growing sense of "self-selected elite" status based on comradery more than contribution. I was told to "go to Hell" by the then MS rep.
>
>If selection is more transparent these days, bravo Microsoft. Certainly it makes me feel better to see obvious contributors like you and Sergey recognised, as with most of the others. I see lots of other regular contributors there as well, all credit to them. However, looking at the list I can still see one or two whose "contribution" to their peers is minimal but whose promotion of MS is presumably deserving of reward. If we could eliminate those last few, the award would provide much better recognition for those who share their expertise unselfishly and routinely. either that, or there should be "contribution" and "cooperation" streams so we can tell what special service was performed to achieve the reward.
>
>Regards
>
JR,

My position on this issue has been, and always will be, "It's their ball, they make the rules." Whether or not you or I feel someone is deserving is irrelevant. Certainly, however, I feel that people like Michel, who doesn't really answer questions, but provides this forum, is deserving.

Writing an article or a book, from my experience, is a contribution to the community. As someone who has written a number of articles (both for pay and for free), isn't something someone does for anything other than recognition. I've written 5 articles for Advisor, and I'd say that if I spent the same amount of time doing an outside project, I'd have received 10 times (easily) the amount of money I did for the article. Some of my friends, who have written books say the same thing.

In all reality, I don't think that anyone is in a position to say who is and who is not deserving. Certainly, I don't frequent all VFP forums. As a result, I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to comment one way or another except to say "Congratulations" to those who made it.

Regards,