Well, you added a lot to your comments on the program after these, but I'll just jump in here. I too sometimes wonder about the MVP program. It seems that the community has a love-hate relationship with MS. And it also seems that you're not going to be an MVP if you show the hate side. Of course, the MVPs could love MS totally and have no bad feelings towards them (then they'd be honest, at least, but not objective, IMHO). I love VFP, but I'm not in love with everything MS does, even with Ken Levy at the VFP helm (some things he can't control, I realize). But I'd like to know of examples of MVPs who criticize MS. I realize that MS is not going to pick anyone that only criticizes them, but I also feel that part of the deal is that you can't be critical (even when it is deserved). As much as I value the contribution of some of these MVPs, that's one aspect of the program that I don't like.

>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