>"Do you acknowledge any error on your part about this?
>
>No. I understood and understand the term. I quoted the full definiton. The term does not characterize the actual action.

I see. When there are several definitions to choose from, you pick one (whose source you failed to cite), and then you assert that the original statement was a "blatant falsehood".

>
>"But he (they) blew it completely with the first sentence."
>
>Exactly how did he do that? The vast majority of VFP developers were royally ticked at what was going on. John was already an established VFP developer, speaker, and author. As far as I and some others are concerned, he had earned the right to make that opening statement.

Let me know if you can get 500,000 VFP developers to agree that John was representing us when he made that statement. By overstating his point, he defeated it. By failing to go even further and confront the real issue, not "what are your plans", but "how about satisfying our modest request, even if it's not part of your plan, because Microsoft listens to its customers", the subject was easily brushed aside.

>
>Those who complained on electronic forums about the lack of marketing, yet also chose to blame John for his speech and question to Bill, should (IMO) take a serious look at their own intestinal fortitude.
>
>Kevin

I applaud John's efforts and his apparent intent with that question. My critique is offered in hindsight, since I wasn't even aware of this episode until its recent mention on UT. I take issue with the conclusions that John seems to have drawn from this experience, and your own apparent inability to acknowledge any fault in either of your statements. Having already devoted more time to this argument than I can allow myself, I'll bow out of this thread right here.

Mike