Dave,

It is senseless because you say it is senseless???? Which is more senseless: my post to Ken pointing out a logical inconsistency in his post or your post critiqing my response?

FWIW - the issue has nothing to do with the minor stuff that gets in or gets tossed in a beta cycle. I am not claiming that the process is perfect - nothing is. And, I reject the assertion that I am nit-picking. In the last few days, Ken has posted a number of inconsistient and confusing posts regarding Fox/Europa and the degree of support that may exist for Yukon and other technologies.

As an "associate publisher" of a technical magazine - I am sure you can appreciate pointed questions and comments that are designed to get at the heart of the matter.

So - if you want to debate the merits of my questions/comments - then do that though a set of pointed comments.

As for nit-picking - you seemed intent on doing just that when you *had* to clarify the record that it was you who put the Code Focus on Fox issue together and not Rod...< s >...

Thanks,

< JVP >




>John,
>
>>Ken - do you realize that this paragraph is 100% self-contradictory? On one hand, you say the plan is locked down - on the other hand, you say things may get cut. Ken - that is not locked down. Locked down means just that - no changes.
>
>Come on, John. You're wasting your time with senseless postings like this. Any of us who have participated in betas know how things generally work and that while a feature set may be considered locked down as a necessity moving into testing, sometimes things do dynamically slip in or get removed at the last minute. Usually anything that slips IN is very minor.
>
>Without stating that at some point the feature set is locked down, a development team would never get a product through the development and testing phases.
>
>Why must you continually nit-pick? People might begin to get the impression that you're just trying to be the center of attention. <s>
>
>Regards,