>Exactly whose emotional responses are you referring to?

Responses like yours.

>>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.

As silly as those who refer to the product in the first person?

>>Do you think I am doing damage to the tool?
>
>I don't think you help it.

It is irrational to think the tool can be "helped".


>>You did see Ken Levy's post to somebody who called for a marketing plan
>
>No.

Check out Message # 862685.


>
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.
>

I'll be sure to ask him about this the next time I am in Seattle - and Ken, Rod, and I are having dinner...< s >...


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

OK....

>
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.
>

Have you ever seen the movie "The Usual Suspects"?


>>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
>

No tool is perfect. RV's are one of the biggest warts Fox has.

>>
maintained that that VFP's inheritance was nothing to shout about compared to VB's limited OO capabilities,
>>

That is not what I said. Rather, I responded to claims that VB 6 was in effect crap because it did not support implementation inheritance.

>>
you reckon that the CA concept is a waste of space,
>>

Just my opinion. And by the scores of posts I have seen from people trying to get it to work - I am not off base.

>
you have spouted on about VFP's inadequacies in the COM/debugging area ... the list goes on.
>

A legit gripe - and a gripe shared by many. If you think the COM Debugging facilities are good - compared to what VB 6 had - you clearly don't engage in that sort of work.


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

When the critisism is warranted, I give it. If you disagree with a technical opinion I have put forth, then debate me. Otherwise, you need to stand down.



>>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?

No...but based on the words you use, it may be that you needed a reminder.


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

If you say so. It is certianly the case now - and has been for the last 7 years or so.


>
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.
>

I think it is clear that the case you are making - and many here, is that if it is a modest app - for small companies, Fox is likely the best fit out there. I don't totally disagree with this.


>
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.
>

I agree with you here.