>Tore,
>
>Do we really need to demand direct evidence that 99% of the I/T world regards Fox as a legacy/obselete tool?

If that's what you're trying to convince everyone of here on a FOXPRO fourm - then I'd say YES you need to be able to prove your point and not just randomly spit out some made-up non-scientific statistic that's based soley on your attempts to annoy someone rather than report the details of an honest survey or a real statistical study that was done. Note that I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the comment - I just don't think it's wise to assume you know what 99% of the I/T world thinks when the odds are you've talked to less than 1/1000000 of them.

>In their gut, I think most people know this to be the case.Whether they like it or not, that is hardly the issue.
>
>My only point is that "Fox-Knobs" bite back in a personal way when whine and complain about the current state of affairs. Like Rod said, these people must be the type that like abuse...
>
>
>
>
>>Hi Kohn,
>>
>>I am not arguing for/against VFP here, that's irrelevant in this case. I just want to make it clear that whenever you require that other people prove their points, we also must expect that you prove your points. You don't seriously mean that you 'play by other rules', do you?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>I also dare you to prove this phrase: "the fact that the other 99% of the development world (including MS itself) has tossed FoxPro onto the pile of irrelevant/obselete technology."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You dare me to prove.....
>>>
>>>Tore, it is self-evident. Whether you want to see that or not - that is your issue to deal with.