Excuse me.... I did not bring David or John into this thread....that would be Mike...

Direct it somewhere else Jim...


>John,
>
>I assume you realize just how childish your recent responses have been.
>
>In case not, let me tell you that your replies have been childish, not to mention bordering on insult to some people whoen't even participants in the thread.
>
>You seem to garner some support from other folks in PA and that seems to egg you on. They are NOT doing you any favour (or at least they are doubtless becoming embarrassed to have supported your now well demonstrated childness).
>
>Jim
>
>
>>Appeals to the "authority" of David Stevenson and John Ryan.....
>>
>>I don't need to go any further than that...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>IAC...your argument was dispatched rather quickly...
>>>>
>>>>THAT is all that counts....
>>>
>>>Here was your position in that thread:
>>>
>>>If you contend that Fox is absolutely more flexible then all I really need to do is find 1 signficant example where it is not. At that point - you will need to rebut that point. If you cant rebut the point - you pretty much need to concede the argument. Keep in mind that I have a rather long list of things that would require rebuttal from you. In the end - your whole flexbility argument would be dismantled.
>>>
>>>Which prompted a reply from David Stevenson:
>>>
>>>If Mike found 5 cases where Fox was more flexible and you found 4 cases where .NET was more flexible that would prove that Fox was more flexible. You cannot seriously think that you winning ONE point ends the argument. That is totally illogical.
>>>
>>>And John Ryan:
>>>
>>>Does the fact that my SUV can carry more than my bicycle mean that the SUV is more flexible?
>>>
>>>No, it just means that the SUV can carry more. The bicycle is easier to park; there are large parts of town where bikes can go but a car cannot; and the bike helps me live longer.
>>>
>>>Obviously "flexibility" is not judged by selecting a single case that suits one's stance. If I need to get from A to B quickly, a helicopter may be more useful than either the SUV or the bike. Surely we all agree that it would be illogical to claim that a helicopter is the most flexible transport option for me, based on that single premise; or to insist that this single case forms an irresistable rebuttal of the assertion that some other option is most flexible.
>>>
>>>If my challange was defeated it was only because you made a wild claim and put your head up your ass so you wouldn't be bothered by the objections to your outragous claim.
>>>
>>>I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt again. I don't believe you are maliciouslly trying to mislead us.
>>>
>>>I think you are a simple minded person who has managed to mislead yourself, and embarassing yourself in public is just an unfortunate consequence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>This reminds me of when you tried the whole "I can write a more scaleable app in Fox/DBF's than you can in SQL Server"....
>>>>>
>>>>>You've "quoted" me twice now with this and I suspect its a misquote designed to mislead, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to your over-glorified memory of your own conversations.
>>>>>
>>>>>You must be refering to:
>>>>>thread#851534
>>>>>
>>>>>Just as in this thread, in that thread you thought that the 2gb table limit is the end all to be all argument. In a contest of flexibility with many criteria you attempted to ignore all criteria except the table size limit. Despite how painfully that reeks of an attempt intended to mislead I'll again chalk that up to your simple mind and not hold that against you.
>>>>>
>>>>>That said, using a webservice to access DBFs hides all of the complexity of horizonally partitioned data files. It may even have the side benefit of enhanced performance if data is separated in files by current vrs historical meaning and the webservice is able to distinguish between the users requests.
>>>>>
>>>>>This of course ignores the possibility of vertical partitioning which is even less of a design issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>In any case, your ability to quote me directly is very representative of your ability to engage in productive conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless you have anything to say for yourself that is compelling enough to prompt my response, we're done here.