>...My stuff was intended to get into the inter-workings of Oracle - and leverage that platform in the context of VFP...

It's good to see that you are now willing to reveal some of the details of what you wanted to write about -- information that you never gave me. The "followup" email you sent on 3/11 did not give any details and was not a followup because there was no prior message or other communication to me.

>My guess is that I could probably do the same thing in .NET - pitch it to Rod, and get the piece published.

If it's such valuable info for the Fox community, why not go ahead and write the articles and put them up publicly so the community can benefit from your experience? FoxTalk is not the only Fox publication or online site -- or have you already burned all the other bridges, too?

>True...but Editors are fiduciaries for the public interest. IMO, editors breach this duty when they decisions based on personal bias as opposed to objective criteria measured by what is in the best interests of the magazine. The easy counter to this is that Dave could say "Well John, including content by you would result in an outcry from the reader-ship - and that would not be in the best interest of the magazine". Again, he could say that. It is an easily defeatable point because more likely than not - the substantive value of the content is outweighed by any perceived negative impact from a personal standpoint.

I told you several times that I would consider proposals from you after the end of the year, depending on circumstances at that time. For some reason that was not good enough for you and you decided to attack my motives publicly.

My reasons for a delay until the end of the year are many, and I will not go into detail publicly about some of those reasons, which might turn out to be embarassing to you. However, it is a fact that I now have more material in the pipeline than I can fit in the space available through the end of the year (even after increasing page count by 25%).

So, even if you had actually proposed something in detail, I would not have had the room for it any time soon. I also want to see some more detailed survey statistics related to tool usage to better determine what topics our subscribers would be most interested in.

I could go on and on with even more reasons... but what is the point? You were PO'd at me and decided to attack. That lack of professionalism, along with the other factors already discussed between me and my publisher, was enough to close the door. I guess the fact that you are PO'd at me means that I am doing something right, according to the logic you posted elsewhere today.

>One thing my years in this business has taught me. You could be the most hated SOB on the planet. But...if you have a good idea, and you share it. People who dislike you are not so principled that they would not partake of that good idea.

Then do it. Actually take the time and write the articles and get them out there to help the community. Fish or cut bait.

There is no need to keep harping about how or why your "offer" was turned down -- it happens all the time to countless potential authors for a whole host of reasons in thousands of publications, even to those authors who bother to send detailed proposals. Get over it and move on. As I told you before, FoxTalk's success or failure is not tied to whether or not I run articles from you -- it's just not all about you, no matter how much you want it to be.

You surely are creative enough to be able to get the articles to the VFP community somehow -- if you really care enough about putting the info out where people can make use of it.

>I disagree. I believe if you wanted to see certain content in FoxTalk...Dave would oblige.

FoxTalk has a good working relationship with Microsoft, resulting in the monthly Tips from the VFP Team column, and good access to team members for technical clarifications on the VFP 9 material we are developing. That relationship, however, does not extend to editorial decision-making about what content is to be included or what topics my authors will write about.

At this point, with my fifth issue (September) being edited right now, I have not yet heard Ken suggest even one topic to me for consideration, other than our original discussions about the Tips column. He didn't even give me any details about your proposed Oracle articles or even mention to me that you had suggested such an idea. That's why your "followup" message was so strange, I suppose. Maybe you thought that because Ken was supposedly calling the shots that he had passed your info on to me? That's not how it works.

I have gone out and actively solicited proposals from some very good developers and writers (and from some others who approached me), and the pipeline is full. I even surprised Ken completely by landing an upcoming series (starting in August) on an as-yet-unannounced new set of classes in VFP 9.

I think my readers expect and appreciate an independent publication that can print what it wants, but which has a friendly enough relationship with Microsoft to get the inside technical information needed to be both timely and accurate.

Now, you can accept the simple fact that I have made as clear as possible: the door is closed, and no amount of whining from you or anyone else is going to change that. Or, you can continue to use your rejection as a reason to stir up controversy and fight me and FoxTalk. The choice is yours, but if you really want to help the community, write the articles and make them public somehow.