Ed,
>
>I wasn't targeting anyone - I was simply taking the opportunity to expand on the hyperbole that NF started; it was nearly irresistable. If some took it as a personal attack on the originator, I can't deny that the thin-skinned might take it as a cheap shot. I think that JN's response was as antagonistic as NF's post - she stated a clearly impossible rule, and he stated that it would be given the attention it deserved. EOT.

It wasn't viewed at all as a "personal attack" but it was viewed as a useless comment to a serious subject. I tried to respond in kind and you indicate that I succeeded.

>I don't see either JN's or NF's messages as openly antagonistic; both seem to have politely snubbed the other's suggestion.

Again, Nancy's only served to cheapen the subject at hand. Frankly I find that unhelpful from someone with MVP status and that you helped it along that path was also unhelpful. You may not believe it, but many here take their cues from our esteemed MVPs.

>
>I won't even consider why JN felt it necessary to take exception to my involvement in this discussion, but based on what I perceive to be an attempt at bear-baiting in a later message, prompted by yourself, my further participation in this thread is pointless, and I don't want to read through a discussion by those who feel the need to decide the PC-ness of my participation.

No I wasn't baiting anyone. You have done an admirable job of refraining from comment in threads having my name in them and I was very surprised to see you break your (assumed and also stated) personal rule for the matter at hand. That's all there was to that comment by me.

SNIP >If I have wishes, I can find another means of expressing them, thankyouverymuch.

Lucky you! Most of us are constrained by the published OFFICIAL mechanisms. As of April 25, 2002 FoxWish@microsoft.com was officially replaced by the wish list here on UT. We have only that method of expressing them, thankyouverymuch.

What was it about the "rules" that was so onerous to you as to support Nancy's position on the matter? Would the whole thing have been viewed differently if I had used the term "guidelines" instead? If so, wouldn't it have been more productive to just say so?
>
>>Re your points on the wishlist: anybody who has participated in a listview-moderated beta will agree that threaded wishes/reporting risks repetition because it can be difficult to hunt down previous reports. Tracking down existing reports is one of Jim's big points. I'm sure he'll take on board the suggestion re wiki-style presentation.
>>
>
>I'm certain that if others support the suggestion and my name is dropped as the source of the suggestion, it might happen. SNIP

UT being the official MS Wish mechanism for the Fox, that would require a Wiki-like mechanism within the UT 'framework'. I will add this as another possibility for Michel to consider.
I happen to learn a lot from virtually any post of yours and the idea that your name would have to be dropped for any reasonable suggestion of yours to be considered/included is absurd. I have trouble with spurious insults and I have seen virtually none on UT, by anyone, for quite some time now.

SNIP
Regards