>>Exactly whose emotional responses are you referring to?
>Responses like yours.

Then you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word emotional.

>>>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?

Semantics. Nothing to do with the discussion. You are quite laughable though. Its like when you pull someone up on their spelling. For a "soon to be lawyer", your spelling is routinely poor.

>>>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".

Again, you leave the real discussion behind when you come up with this kind of childish word-play.

>>>You did see Ken Levy's post to somebody who called for a marketing plan
>>No.
>Check out Message # 862685.

Thanks, but, no thanks.

>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 >...

So you have dinner with Ken Levy and Rod. Bully. I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of fish? It still doesn't mean that Ken Levy chooses not to engage you in a public forum because its a total waste of his time. This kind of name dropping cuts no ice with this discussion. It just proves how important you rate the Fox world despite your apparent loathing of it. "Hey everyone, look at me - I'm having dinner with Ken Levy (oh and RodMan will be there to back me up)". Give me a break.

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

I sure have. But in this version, the suspect list is bigger and keeps on growing.

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

Now you say :-

>RV's are one of the biggest warts Fox has.
>the CA concept is a waste of space ... I am not off base.
>VFP's inadequacies in the COM/debugging area ... 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.

We are talking about what you said - not what I said. I haven't said this so don't imagine that you can read my mind too.

>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.

You ought to stand by your own instruction. When you you are overawed by the other side of the "debate", you simply start making the grammar of the post the issue ... like above when you start talking about "those who refer to the product in the first person?". You really are cheap in this regard.

>>>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.

More drift from the subject. This sort of drivel response is used when you start backing down from the obvious.