Jim, I normally stay out of this stuff, but I'd hate to see another morass of pointless posts muddying up an otherwise so useful system.

Back when Nancy replied to your post, I felt, like you, that her post was 'unfruitful' (at best -and certainly pointlessly disrespectful at worst). I have a lot of respect for Nancy and what she has achieved and continues to contribute, and that particular post, I thought, was way out of character.

Having said that, your 'revenge post' was no better.

Are we, or are we not, adults here. If not, can we just all get a grip and at least pretend?

Alan

>Jim,
>
>Just as there was no point of value to GeorgeT's post, so it was the case with mine.
>It is a relatively rare case when I will simply reply with a "Well said..." or a "BRAVO!...", but is it most common to see one MVP say that about some post by another MVP.
>In fact it is a tactic used commonly by some MVPs when they feel a need to denigrate a thread originator and this case has hallmarks of exactly that.
>And this reply by GeorgeT amounts to nothing less than "piling on" in my humble opinion.
>
>I felt that NancyF did a super job in her reply to JerryK in 'asking' how the article related to JerryK's stated departure and then explaining a good rationale for her choices for the article.
>
>EdR made a small comment on linked lists and then got on the soapbox about "best tool for the job" and finally "BRAVOed NancyF's "brave stand" about 'best tool for the job'. Funny, but I hadn't AT ALL interpreted NancyF's reply as pushing any such concept as "best tool for the job"!
>
>GeorgeT came along with a succinct "Well said, Ed (and Nancy too < s >).". Nothing more. My reply had equal "value" to any reader but had the added value for myself of actually feeling what it is like to answer succinctly "well said...". Other than for personal learning of the feeling of writing/publishing it it offered nothing.
>
>In fact it is impossible to know what in EdR's reply was "well said". It could have been the "use the right tool for the job" part or it could have been the "BRAVO!..." part. I earnestly hope that it was not the "BRAVO!..." part, but I suspect that it was exactly that, given past history (see my second line at start here). But, let's assume that it was the "best tool for the job" part. . .
>This "best tool for the job" phrase, now spouted as axiomatic by virtually all of the MVP crowd (who have also convinced many others of its "truth") is nothing more than a Microsoft marketing phrase aimed at increasing their sales of their programming (and related) products. It is one that particularly annoys me because it is far more a falsehood than it is a truth!
>
>The very nature of computers and programming - the singular thing that makes them different than any other "tool" devised by man to date - is their FLEXIBILITY. And any successful programming language has to permit full exploitation of that innate flexibility. Any that doesn't is doomed to failure. We can all sneer at COBOL, but the fact of the matter is that COBOL is still very widely used across the whole of the application (of computers) spectrum, particularly in the business environment. VFP is absolutely no different as regards its applicability in the business environment. The same can undoubtedly be said for C++ or Delphi or C or VB or whatever (no doubt including VB.NET and C# and Java, etc.). Sure, each language may have features that give it an edge on specific issues within any system design, but the fact of the matter is that a smart designer/programmer can use his/her language of most expertise to meet the overall requirements of any business system!
>Now delivering any business system in today's environment requires a lot of other skills besides programming. Things like HTML and COM and Web Services and file system services and installer utilities and ISAPI and browsers (many of them) and a whole host of other related functionality require basic learning and understanding too to deliver an application. I view these items themselves as "tools" and my programming language of choice as my programming tool.
>
>I do not argue that there is benefit in anyone learning several programming tools. But I do get very upset when our "leaders" (the people who we look to for guidance) consistently repeat "best tool for the job" (a MS marketing slogan at best). At best it can only make those who choose to limit their immediate expertise to a single programming tool as inadequate failures and to me that is WRONG. It is one thing to say that it is a good idea to learn one of the new .NET languages, but it is quite another thing to simply repeat "the right tool for the job". It is an untruth and only serves to make the reader feel inadequate.
>
>Now let me ask you a question. . .
>
>You took issue with my reply to GeorgeT, noting that it took away from the high quality of the prior replies. I felt that a recent thread I started regarding proposed changes for the Europa Wish List on UT was also a "quality" item deserving of quality responses. For your reference it is thread #708412.
>I started the thread at 12:31 hrs and at 12:55 hrs NancyF replied in a highly negative and totally unfruitful manner. This was followed 6 minutes later by a reply by EdR and the ridiculing was off to the races. It wasn't until 17:04 hrs that day (over 4 hours later) that someone with enough gumption chose to ignore the ridicule and offer a constructive reply. Between 12:55hr and 17:04hr there were 8 replies, all following NancyF's lead and participating in the ridicule.
>Now the question: Where were your comments regarding denigrating a thread in THAT case???? (and in this case it set a tone right at the start that entirely polluted the whole seriousness of the thread. Mine, at least, was at the end).
>JimN
>
>I apologize for the length of this reply, but the background was necessary.
>
>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>Well said, Ed (and Nancy too< s >).
>>>
>>>Well said George, Ed and Nancy too! (just wanted to see what self-congratulatory malarky FEELS like.)
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>What is the point of your post?
>>
>>Nancy and Ed were both quite eloquent is their posts. Both of them brought out some important thoughts on a very timely issue. I don't understand why you found it necessary to denegrate the thread with an obviously personal dig at nancy, Ed, and George.