>>No, I don't consider the other words to be vile invective. Is everything Steve wrote vile invective? No. Can some of it be vile invective? Yes. You asked for some examples and I have given you some.
>
>Ok, your opinion. Hope you don't shoot me for having another opinion (that Steven's words are not over the limit).

Perhaps you could give me an example of something you would consider to be over the limit?

>>Out of context? I provided a link so everyone could read it the entire post. Also, within that context, Steve was still criticizing Whil's web site. That line was just the worst of it. That's not out of context. Out of context would be if Steve had mostly praise for Whil's web site, but I chose a line that was slightly critical.
>
>Yes, you provided the link. I didn't intend to accuse you. I only tried to prevent that eventual passive readers would skip the link and suffice with reading the single quote.

Nonetheless, the line I quoted was still not out of context. As I pointed out, if Steven's words had mostly been positive about Whil's web site, and I choose to only quote one line that was critical, that would be out of context. Can you clarify how you think the line I quoted was out of context?

>>It's a little ironic to see Steven criticizing someone for not showing some measure of responsibility. He was booted from the UT some time ago for showing a lack of it.
>
>Chris, I had to leap back in time (over 2 years) to find any messages from Steven Black on this forum. Which one got him booted, so I can read that stuff?

I don't think it was one particular message that got Steven kicked off the UT. It was the result of a long-going battle between him and JVP that was over the limit. There was quite a bit of profanity and name calling. Both Steven and JVP were kicked out at that time. JVP was allowed back, but I don't know about Steven.

>>Unless I am mistaken, you still have not answered my question about Steve calling Whil's website "shi**y"? That is within acceptable debate standards in your opinion.
>
>I wouldn't use such a word on the web, but I would also not call somebody paranoia here. Or is it acceptable in the States to call another paranoia, like "hey, you're a nice somewhat paranoia guy"? The point is... what can we say without being abused of using 'vile invective'? If critical words are not allowed here, then tell me and I'll never return on this forum anymore. I'll then boot from it myself quite happily.

Perhaps it is just a language problem, but what I wrote was that you were being paranoid about this particular issue, i.e. Whil's post was accusing you. I did not write that you are paranoid all the time, nor paranoid in general. There is nothing in Whil's post whatsoever that leads anyone other than you to think he was referring to you.

There are many things we can write on the UT that are critical. When you start attacking someone personally, it's over the line in my opinion. Both Steven and JVP have done that. And not for the first time.

>>I really don't know where that logic is coming from. It's just way off base for you to write that someone should have to respond to any post in this forum, especially after they have made it clear they are tired of the accusations that have been made against them.
>
>What would you think about, let's say, me if I posted a new thread here, severely accusing you, without ever responding to your replies?

But Whil did not attack you, nor was what Whil wrote severe. I have given pretty convincing evidence of whom I think Whil was referring to. It was not you. Both JVP and Whil have attacked Whil personally, and he has reponded in this forum. That he chooses not to continue after the personal attacks shows to me that Whil has more restraint and character than most of us would have in his situation, including me. I would probably be thrown out of the UT, as my temper would get the better of me.

>>No, let's be clear. I am categorizing his words in that instance as vile invective. I made that clear in my previous post I believe by putting "words" in bold print. I am not categorizing him as vile invective. Please be very careful in what you accuse me of.
>
>I am very careful and I'm not accusing you at all. I saw you rephrase your initial wording, but you did not excuse in any way for the initial wording, where you did say exactly what you say you did not. Here I might say 'please be very careful in what you accuse me of, but maybe it's all a misunderstanding because I'm not a native speaker (of English) and in that case I'd like to be told so.

Here is my exact quote:

>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.

Once again, I not calling Steven "vile invective", although that statement alone does not make sense in English. Again, perhaps this is a language problem. But I see his words as being vile invective. There is a difference.

>>Criticism is fine and welcomed, but this is similar to Johann Cruyff retiring and fans booing him because he won't play for them anymore :-).
>
>Watch out now, Johan Cruyff is our (soccer) God here. :)
>I had to think about this one. Do you mean that Whil is retiring or something like that?

Yes, I am aware that he was a great player. I play and coach soccer (football). I am pointing out that Whil is retiring from publishing new VFP books, and like Johan Cruyff retired from playing more football. I think it is better to thank him for being such a great contributor to FoxPro rather than criticizing him for not going on for our benefit.

>>Then I am very confused. How is it wrong for Whil to categorize attacks, and let's be clear, these are very personal attacks, not just criticism, as vile invective? How is it that what Steven and JVP wrote are withing acceptable debate rules, but what Whil wrote isn't?
>
>I really don't see the 'personal attacks'. John uses words that make clear to the reader that it's his personal opinion based on his personal experiences with Whil. That is enough for the reader to put things into perspective.

Again, perhaps it is the language barrier, but these words are a very personal attack:

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.

It is a personal attack. In English, when JVP writes that "he cares" (Whil), with quotation marks, he is writing that in fact Whil doesn't care, that Whil is putting on a false front. When you call someone a "master manipulator", that is a very personal attack.

>Another point is that both Steven and John are not unwilling to reply, where Whil is. You may be of opinion that most notably John will do that to the extreme, but at least they can be reached.

After being so personally attacked, especially after all the good he has done for the VFP community, I don't blame him. Whil is showing class and restraint.