>
No, it is me suggesting that what you say is simply your opinion and that certain people may think your opinion in credible. It is a matter of opinion as to whether your opinion is in fact credible. You clearly think you have a credible opinion. Others do not.
>

So you do have an opinion and you have expressed that opinion concerning my credibility.

>
Some people are more vocal than others. You should know that.
>

That is a true statement - in any context. Yes, I know that.

>
I think the reactions you garner are from more than a "handful".
>

Perhaps...but it is still believe it is a minority (extreme) opinion.



>
No, I care about the tool which is why on occasion, I cannot ignore what you write about it.
>

No wonder the responses are laced with so much emotion. You care about the tool? What...do you think I hurt the tool's feelings? Do you think I am doing damage to the tool? You did see Ken Levy's post to somebody who called for a marketing plan that it is actually people like them that do more harm than good. You don't see Ken writing those posts to me - do you?

Maybe when you take the emotion out of it and use some objectivity, perhaps then your thinking will be clearer.



>
No, I wouldn't want customers reading your many negative posts and getting the wrong impression of a very good tool.
>

The wrong impression? You do understand that most of my comments are directed at the market and big picture - not the tool itself? You do understand that in I have been complementary of the tool insofar as its technical abilities are concerned? Seriously, go back and read. Nowhere will you find that I say VFP is junk and should be dumped immediately. I have never said that.

How could you possibly talk or comment on an impression when it is clear that you have not read (closely) what I have written. I think you see something from me and in response, there is a knee-jerk reaction.



>
I don't think that Fox is a growth market for Fox tool vendors who have the talent to create non-Fox tools. I was effectively referring to .NET, Java et al.
>

Gary, it is not growth market for any vendor, regardless of whether they have the talent to create non-fox tools.


>
Yup, it is much better. "Perception wise", is a different issue. In the corporate world, the Fox perception has never been that good.
>

That is not true. There was a time when Fox largely brought about positive perceptions.


>
A lot of businesses that I have experienced are more interested in whether the solution they are paying for will solve business problems and are generally not overly interested in what lies under the hood.
>

Some are like this...but not all - not even most. It was this ambivelence toward "what was under the hood" has caused many companies to make bad technology choices.