>>
>My post to you has nothing to do with whether VFP should be in .Net. Thats your assumption (#1). My post has everything to do with your comment to Tore. You need to try and read the "forest" of the post and not get hung up in the "trees".
>>
>
>Considering the title of this thread is "Why not VFP .NET" - I presumed otherwise...
>

I think my post was clear in its message. We are all guilty of thread drift. Apologies to James and FWIW my 2c contribution to the thread title is that I agree that VFP should not be in .Net for reasons already given by other particpants.



>>When you post a question you should not also assume the answer. Otherwise we have what is known as the collective monologue. In any case, your assumption (#2) would be wrong. I am not interested in pro- or anti- VFP statements per se. What I fail to understand is the purpose of (repeated) anti-VFP statements in a pro-VFP forum.
>>
>
>You do realize that my posts being couched as being "anti-VFP" - is simply your opinion...

A shared opinion, but ok.


>>>Not sure about that. For one thing - I don't think you will find a "community" like this in the Delphi, SQL Server, etc - developer bases.
>>
>>Thats an assumption (#3). I dont know as I dont frequent them so I will not offer an opinion myself.
>>
>
>Well I have experience in the world outside VFP - and indeed - there is nothing like the VFP community anywhere else...

Thats a big claim. But ok. I like it.


>>Your assumption (#4) that I had an assumption about "the article" is erroneous as I did not refer to "the article" (although I know of which one you speak). I refered to a hypotethical "an article".
>>
>
>Talk about splitting hairs....

Not so. I was absolutely making a general point, not a specific comment on that case study.


>>I am not after any case study. I am however interested in the ongoing and future welfare of my current favourite development tool which I have invested some time and energy in learning, albeit badly.
>>
>
>So the logic here is that because so much time and money has been invested - the product must be continually promoted.

Totally your words, not mine. My point is very clear and does not need any embelishment from you at all. But you are free to do so, of course.


>You do realize that this is a personal agenda on your part - right????

Yes of course. My point made that clear and starts with "I am interested...". However I think its a shared agenda here on the UT.


>You do realize that you are asking me to curb my opinions based on your personal wishes and desires - right????

Not at all. At no time have I requested this of you. I have only expressed my puzzlement as to the motivation and purpose of many comments.


>If you don't have the time, energy, inclanation, etc to not be dependant on Fox - well sir - that is your problem - not mine.

A pointless personal attack. I dont have a problem with it at all. And I am not dependent on VFP. More assumptions on your part. I have studied several dev langauges in my career and am currently playing around with C# (poorly I admit). You simply miss the entire point. But I will accept that its my failure to communicate it properly.


>I suggest you begin looking at the mirror and take some personal responsibility for your situation - and let other people worry about their own situations.

A pointless personal attack.


>To be clear - my opinion will not nor shall it be subordinated by your personal agenda...

Why is it ok for you to express your opinions but you dont like it if someone else express' theirs?


>>Oh yes it very much is. Developers who spend a huge investment in time and energy to become expert in a chosen dev tool will defend that tool.
>>
>
>Some...not all do this.... Look at the folks who were in the "VFP Guru" community 5 years ago. How many of them are "defending" the tool today. A good % have "moved on"...

Your point does not address my point at all. Its a new point and not related. I did not say that developers do not learn new tools, other platforms, and so forth. I did not say that tools do not come and go. This is a different issue to the point I made.


>>And last but not least assumption (#8). I am, not confusing the two at all and I do not see any fanaticism in the UT participants.
>>
>
>ROFL....

Its dirty.


>>Only enthusiasm and excitement for their current primary dev tool which is what I would expect in this pro VFP forum.
>>
>
>Euphemistic I would say...

I don't understand.


>>
>A positive community for a product is exactly what much marketing is about.
>>
>
>Guy Kawasaki would agree with you... Of course, it has bred a good deal of disfunctionality in these corners....

This is again a broad and blanket statement designed to give the impression that the point has been defeated but it has, in fact, no substance. Strong community around a product is indicative of brand loyalty and is a desired objective of product manufacturers. Numerous examples can be made in all product categories. I can give author names and book titles if you like.