>Hi Peter
>
>> (Do you still remember our discussion in Heerhugowaard?)
>
>Sure I do. I even used part of that model myself in a later project

Some months after the publication of my model you and Marcia (btw, give my best regards) had a similar topic in Foxtalk. There were similarities, but also important differences between the solutions and I remember I felt an urge to start a constructive discussion. I could have sent you a private e-mail, but a public discussion appeared to be the preferred alternative. I was in search of a place to start such a discussion. Foxtalk does not have a forum and UT, for some vague reason, didn't seem to be the appropriate place to start a discussion about a Foxtalk topic. In the end all my hesitation led to doing nothing at all, and I now think I should have sent you the private e-mail indeed.

The lesson? Perhaps Foxtalk should consider a public forum, or we might ask Michel Fournier to support a new category 'Foxpro Magazines', where threads could be started based on recent articles. I think that getting at least some reactions will stimulate a lot of us to write inspiring articles.


>>Maybe the UT Magazine draws talented people away from FA and Foxtalk?
>
>I don't think that is really a direct competitor for authoring talents. But as you know, it takes a lot of effort to write an article...
>
>> Was the article bad? Do the readers not really read? How many readers are there really? Would the UT Mag have been a better platform?
>
>Out of the more than 70 articles I have had published, I would guess that I have received readers responses to maybe 10 or so. I wouldn't judge on one (or even tow or three) articles. Most readers seem to give feedback only if they really love, (or hate) an article - and usually only then if it happens to solve a current problem...

Good to read these words and those of Paul Mrozowski. :)