>John, you poor lost soul,

Reading this, the only thing that comes to mind is that ismlamic fundamentalists believe those in the west are "lost souls"... I also think you tend to take this stuff too seriously.

>
Only **YOU** would choose the statement "...it remains a clear slap in the face to Visual FoxPro." to pick apart! While you clearly are incapable of discerning the meaning of the phrase, no one else seems to have had any difficulty at all with it.
>

I understand what you were trying to say. Rather, I commented on your word choice and the problems that go along with it. Whether you agree or disagree with that conclusion, I don't care.

>
Since the balance of your response is based entirely on your interpretation/argument of that statement I will not answer.
>

Many people tend to ignore what they don't wish to face...Indeed Jim, the truth hurts.


>
But for what it's worth, you demonstrate a far far more "rabid" attitude in matters relating to the future of VFP than I can ever hope to achieve.
>

Gee I don't know...I posted a fairly positive post in response to what Ken did with respect to the case study...

The future of Fox is not the big issue...losing jobs in the West to those in the East - now there is an issue to get concerned with. I wonder if they will be doing Fox in India?


>
Unfortunately your rabidity is not at all helpful or useful in THIS SPECIFIC FORUM.
>

Clearly, I am not helpful to your point of view - which is fine by me. And for that reason alone, you (like others) will simply refuse to deal with the relevant issues.

Look Jim, you clearly took a lot of time crafting a response to Ken. As near as I can tell, you have not received a response. Maybe you will...maybe you won't. In you post - which was quite long - it was not clear what *exactly* you were saying. In the end, I saw it as nothing more than being PO'd at MS for not promoting Fox. Well Jim, that is hardely news and it is not something that is going to change. And, as far as the case studies goe, this one was no less superficial than other ones. But - because this one happened to deal with Fox in a manner you did not - you took issue with it. The basis upon which you attack this case study could be applied to other case studies. So IMO - it is more than a little disingenous to attack this one under the guise of "technical merit". You questioned the motives and rationale of the company. Who are you to do that? Do you question anybody who goes to .NET? Or, do you just question those companies that go to .NET from VFP?

Anyway, I would not hold your breath waiting for significant action from MS.