>So, what you meant by "if it is a bona-fide success story - that is all that counts"? Taking off any of your usual lawful rhetoric, your statement may lead to this perception, at least it did to me. So what really counts? Your words, your (hidden) intent or the perception they caused?
>

Just because that is your perception - that alone does not make it reasonable. You think you are that good that you can infer some sort of hidden intent on my part.

>
No, it gets panned because of things like that, "success stories" that are nothing more than cheap marketing at the expenses of long term proofed tools like VFP, that is being deliberatelly stagnated to be further dropped from all current developers toolset.
>

But what if it was a VFP success story? That would be OK - right???? Then it would not be so cheap and not so much "marketing slime". The ethics around here are pretty situational.


>
My post doesn't confirm anything. When you say that "VFP must be promoted at any and all costs" you should be delirating because VFP ISN'T promoted by any means and at any cost!
>

My point was that it is your contention that VFP must be promoted at any and all cost.



>
Currently .net didn't displaced anything (".NET displaced Visual FoxPro"), at least in the scale MS thinks it should have (how do I know what MS thinks? I don't, I'm just inferring), instead MS is pushing in all the ways they can, developers to the .net ship. As many already commented here and elsewhere many VFP so-called "gurus" are also leading to that. What cannot be accepted is MS stepping over a (almost) dead body to promote their new beloved baby.
>

I don't think acceptance on the part of consumers matters all that much...