>Your argument was that Fox would be MORE flexible. All I have to do is find 1 instance where that is true - and your argument is defeated. I can find a lot more - but 1 is all it takes....

Are you serious? I'll give you an honest chance to confrim that you think this is rational before objecting to its obvious irrationality!

>>It means the requirement is even if you develop JvpApp 1.0 with SQL Server 7.0 and JvpApp 2.0 with SQL Server 2000 we should be able to deploy that application to run at the same time for a client.

>Why don't we just stick with the database issues

This is a database issue. Your requirement involved a WAN and a 10gb table, I didn't complain.

>What are you talking about... you can't do that in Fox either.... If you build an index - you need exclusive use of the table....

Maybe, probably. But the wheels are turning and I could probably come up with a way around it. Otherwise you would win on this point too.

The goal isn't to only accept requirements that I can win on, John. I'm interested in the truth. You're only interested in which of us can present the better case regardless of its bearing on the truth. (I suppose this is the major difference between a philosopher and lawyer, no?)