>No wonder the responses are laced with so much emotion.

Exactly whose emotional responses are you referring to?

>You care about the tool? What...do you think I hurt the tool's feelings?

Now you are just being plain silly with remarks like this.

>Do you think I am doing damage to the tool?

I don't think you help it.

>You did see Ken Levy's post to somebody who called for a marketing plan

No.

>You don't see Ken writing those posts to me - do you?

I think Ken Levy knows you well enough to understand that trying to engage you over *anything* is a futile waste of his time because no matter what he says, you will always seek the last word.

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

I dont think I have ranted or got emotional in any of my posts. My thinking is clear enough.

>The wrong impression? You do understand that most of my comments are directed at the market and big picture - not the tool itself?

Its easy enough for you to say that. But its not the impression you give. How many people take exception to things you say here - there are many. You are always up to your neck in it with someone or other. No, what you say and what you mean are quite often very different things, in my opinion.

>You do understand that in I have been complementary of the tool insofar as its technical abilities are concerned?

Well lets see, you have continously ranted about RV's, their "Foxness" and apparent inability to scale, maintained that that VFP's inheritance was nothing to shout about compared to VB's limited OO capabilities, you reckon that the CA concept is a waste of space, you have spouted on about VFP's inadequacies in the COM/debugging area ... the list goes on.

>Nowhere will you find that I say VFP is junk and should be dumped immediately. I have never said that.

Maybe you haven't but, you have said an awfull lot of other less than complimentary stuff about VFP.

>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.

If I knee-jerked to everything you ever said, I would never be off this board replying to you. You are wide of the mark here.

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

Do you believe this is news? Are you saying that only you know this?

>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.

No, Fox has always had a tough time in the corporate world irrespective of what you say.

>Some are like this...but not all - not even most.

You can't substantiate this at all. Most smaller business that I have come across that have no in-house technological resources couldn't care less. They just want business problems solving.

>It was this ambivelence toward "what was under the hood" has caused many companies to make >bad technology choices.

Well it all depends on who they talk to and what path they choose to go down. Sometimes, you back a loser. Often it is not so much the technology that is at fault but the developer of the chosen technology. As you so often like to say, "you are not your tool". Incapable developers are always going to produce bad systems irrespective of the tool/platform they use to develop in. Sometimes, companies make bad choices because they jump on the latest bandwagon way too soon or are even urged to by the leading luminaries of the day (sounds a little like you and your VB message to the VFP community). I think most companies would be happy with a system that solves their business problems, gives them a competitive edge and doesn't cost them the earth. For this, they don't have to care what is under the hood.