You are right, we are just arguing in circles. Time for me to wish your country the best in Euro 2004.

>>>>Perhaps you could give me an example of something you would consider to be over the limit?
>>>
>>>Kicking the person instead of the ball. That is over the limit. Although.. (let's take soccer as a metaphore), it may be that the kicker did not really mean to kick the person. In that case, the kicker can make clear that it was not meant that way (say "sorry, I thought I kicked the ball"). And also, like in soccer, the players shouldn't be too softhearted.
>>>
>>>Cheating, e.g. by making hands. That is over the limit. Not always easy to see, of course. Although.. it can be that hands was by accident. In that case, say "sorry, it was not on purpose").
>>>
>>>Sometimes (still talking about soccer) you see a player do something nasty, but only out of irritation or after having been pestered too much. Understandable to a certain degree, although not really professional.
>>>
>>>If a single paragraph contains a word or two that might be interpreted as an attack and the main part of the text is constructive, then it's clear to me that the writer's intention was okay and that we should make clear to the writer that words such-and-such were not-so-nice. The writer can then react and reassure that it's all a misunderstanding.
>>
>>I should have been more specific. Can you give me an example of someone posting something on the UT of Fox Wiki that would be over the limit?
>
>No. It implies research. I'd probably find several messages that are near the limit, but only some that are over the limit, in my opinion. Should I mention both? But if I'd do that, you'd probably not agree with my near-limit conclusions. Let us prevent those discussions and agree on my conclusion that you regard a message sooner as over-the-limit than I do.
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>So, it were only, or primarily, Steven and JVP? And the two statements that you have brought up here were the worst examples? And you think that those examples gave Whil the right to say what he said? In that case I disagree and think that Whil has shown himself to be too sensitive.
>>
>>I do not go to the other FoxPro forums, such as CompuServe and FoxForum I believe it is called, so I cannot comment on those. But I don't think you can either. Can you say for certain that Whil was not attacked in those forums?
>>As someone else pointed out to you, the comments may have come in e-mails to Whil. Steven wrote as must in one of his Wiki posts, where he wrote that the e-mails exchanged between the two became testy.
>
>I never visit the Compuserve forum and Foxforum, so I can't. And yes, Steven did say that. But I am criticizing Whil for his paragraphs that addressed forum-people in general. He has not made clear that it was about some only. Anyway, it's all been said again and again here, by you and me. We're talking in circles now.
>
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>The response of Whil was of the wrong type. It was not a reply to either Steven or JVP. It was a one-way statement in which he did not mention either. It did not give either of them (and eventual others) the opportunity to react.
>>>
>>>I really don't see why it's a sign of restraint and character. It might be the case, but it can also be a sign of arrogance.
>>
>>I don't think Whil cares to get into name calling. I consider that a sign of character.
>
>Not calling names can be offending too... for those who are innocent, but nevertheless share some properties with the not-named persons.
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Did you see the match between the Netherlands and the U.S. team? Score 1-0. Your team did quite well, by the way.
>>
>>Yes, I did see it. I thought the Netherlands dominated possesion and created more chances, but the U.S. did much better when Demarcus Beasley entered the game.
>
>Demarcus Beasley? Hmm, don't know that guy and didn't notice him entering the game. I guess, my perspective is coloured. :)
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>It's a personal opinion that makes clear that JVP has had personal, negative experience with Whil. If Whil had treated JVP better (in the eyes of JVP), then JVP would never have written these words. I repeat, the reader gets enough information to put things into perspective.
>>
>>By your definition, then nothing can be considered a personal attack. Whatever someone writes about someone else, you could always explain it as a personal opinion. So, if I were to call JVP the most despicable low-life the world has even seen, that would not be a personal attack, just my personal opinion.
>
>Now I might write: Well, by your definition, then every critical opinion must be considered a personal attack.
>But that would be a misinterpretation of your words, right? Believe me, you are really misinterpreting my words when you write By your definition, then nothing can be considered a personal attack.
>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Or arrogance..
>>
>>I am going to show some class by not responding to that remark.
>
>Are you suggesting here that I made a remark that is over the limit? That I have launched a personal attack towards Whil here? No need to answer, but I might regard such a view on me as a personal attack..