>>IMHO MH was trying to prove a point here.
>You think so????? No question about that....
>"Try" being the operative word.

John and all,

Listen carefully. This will be my last post to you, and my last post here.

I certainly did intend to prove the point that it is not a fact as you had claimed that SQL Server cannot be demonstated to be less flexible than FoxPro, but that was not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread was discussing what a flexible database was and then once the playing ground had been established, see where the cards lie.

I, of course, was not surprised by your reaction. I was surprised to see that it had worked.

Instead of seeing a discussion, you saw a battle. Instead of actually seeing what could develop you instantly tried to end the conversation with an aggressive tactic. You chose to redefine what we were attempting to cooperatively define and then claimed victory on a point that we weren't nearly ready to tackle. When this was objected to as illogical, by myself and by the esteemed David Stevenson and others, you simply held your ground.

Like I said, I'm not of course surprised. This is the type of behavior expected from someone who desires only to win an argument and not the type of behavior expected from some interested in the truth of the matter. The difference between winning by jury and winning by veracity.

What was surprising is that this exchange was then viewed by others as "No one proving John wrong." In other words, the jury has spoken and clearly you appear to have prevailed in the minds of some of them. To see such blatantly irrational behaivor accepted troubles me and, while I'm sure you'll see this as an indication of you being "on the right path", discourages me from any more conversation here.

Clearly, you have your opinion, I have mine, and the rest of the UT has theirs. If this thread wasn't an embarrassing display of your irrationality in some minds then no matter what continues from here will be pointless. What is there to say that will change someone's religion?

The religion I speak of isn't of developer tools. Its of a world view. In your world view truth is obtained by the prevailing opinion of popularity and the temporary condition of having provided a better argument, which suits your aspirations to be a lawyer. In my world view truth is obtained by careful and cooperative discussion, which suits my aspirations to be a philosopher.

If debate were a physical activity, you would view it as a foot race that gets run every week. One week you'll run faster, some weeks I'll run faster, and we'll trade between who's the winner. To me this approach seems temporary and superficial. I'd view the activity as a walk through nature, attempting to discover what I can so that by the end of my journey I can reflect back on a wealth of knowledge, not just a streak of colors as I whizzed by, to aide me in the final decisions I make. That conclusion is the internal reward for having taking my walk.

Trying to have contructive debate with you is alot like being stuck in a dark cave and trying to find the way out. Except that everytime you see a wall you blurt "Last one to the wall is rotten egg" and then you race off towards it, thinking that when you've gotten there you've won something, while the rest are still thinking about getting out of the cave.

If this is my last post I should clear something up. I've called you an idiot repeatedly and have gotten a handful of private messages urging me to quit with the name calling.

Relative to the earth's population, you are an intelligent person. Relative to this message board, you have a room temperature mind. And relative to your arrogance, which is completely undeserved for such a mediocre intelligence, you are a bumbling idiot.

If more people would help you realize this the UT and John Petersen would be alot better off.

And with that, I am off.