>>No paranoia. Don't worry, I'm fine. :)
>
>Just keep repeating that to yourself :-).

No paranoia. Don't worry, I'm fine. :)

>>Ok, you have located the one statement that I, when reading it, regarded to be not-nice. I think there's one more not-nice statement, somewhere. Hope you find that one back also.
>>It's finally a concrete example and it are indeed words (one word actually) from Steven Black. But what do you think of the rest of that webpage? Any other abusive, rather than critical, notes on that page?
>
>What do I think of the other words on that page? I posted my comments towards the bottom:
>
>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~SuggestionsForTheHentzenwerkeWebsite

Yes, but do you consider the other words to be vile invective? I don't. Steven is only feeding a debate, in the hope that it will be constructive in the end.


>There are also these words that I find to be not-so-nice:
>
>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~TheEndOfFoxTalkAndOtherThings

>Whil reminds me somewhat of a guy who just doesn't "get" it, and doesn't even know how to quit in a business-savvy way.
>
>What do you think of that? So now we have some concrete examples of probably what Whil was writing about.

Having read the whole text, not solely your out-of-context text, IMO, all within acceptible debate rules. Besides, this page was published after Whil's accusation.

And I fully agree with Steven's last (but not least) words: Please note that you'll find many places in this wiki where Whil's yeoman service is both noted and acknowledged. The issue, Jim, is this: with leadership comes some measure of responsibility, and the way Whil has chosen to abdicate is neither sensible nor commendable.


>>>The tone of Whil's note was very mild compared to what was written about him on the Fox Wiki. I think he showed more restraint than I would have. I think he is fairly tired of the nonsense that has been written, and doesn't care to get into it anymore.
>>
>>'Nonsense' should be reacted upon, as we do here a lot. At least in the beginning. At least, according to me.
>
>That is your choice, as it is Whil's, and as it is mine.

No, not so much his free choice as you suggest. He has used the UT to post his strong opinions. That's fine, but since it's a forum, he should also react to replies, all according to 'acceptible debate rules' (if you have a better term, please tell me).


>>>I would certainly categorize someone calling Whil's website "shi**y" as vile invective. Furthermore, that is only what I see on the Fox Wiki. I have no idea what else was written about Whil on the other Fox forums.
>>
>>So, now Steven Black is the villain? Do you realize that Steven too has had a tremendous positive impact on the vfp community? You're doing him wrong by categorizing him as a 'vile invective', simply because he one time used the word 'shi**y'.
>>As far as I know, the amount of 'vile invective' words in other forums were none or minimal. Whil should not have mentioned it.
>
>Now who is twisting words? I have not called Steven Black a villian. I have not categorized him as "vile invective". I completely disagree with what he has written, don't care for the way he wrote it, and see his words as being "vile invective. While I see the words he posted as "vile invective", I do not categorize him as a villian or as "vile invective".

Sorry where I twisted your words. You have not called Steven a villain. But you did categorize someone calling Whil's website "shi**y" as vile invective. That someone was Steven, so you categorize Steven as vile invective.


>Now, what do you think of the words he wrote?

All within acceptible debate rules. Hey, here on the UT we all should be accustomed to criticism, don't you think? You called me paranoia. I reacted in a hopefully appropriate manner. I did not categorize you/your words as vile invective, did I ?!


>Speaking of more "vile invective", perhaps you are aware of these words, posted by JVP in Message#876502:
>
>From personal experience, I can tell you Whil is all about Whil. No question that you will get the impression "he cares". But in the end, it is about about business. To a large degree, you can't argue with that - but you do have to question the methods. The whole VFP/Linux issue gives you a clue just how much of a master manipulator he is.

Well, that's JVP. Although I even regard all those words as within acceptible debate rules.