>
John. You have earned whatever kind of reply a member chooses to offer. Some are more "expressive" than others. People are like that.
>

So long as people stay within the boundaries of the rules, a person can express themselves in any manner he/she wishes.


>
Indeed it was considered that I ONCE had (despite simply using a part of a registered trademark in the message in question) by the proprietor of the UT. And he dealt with me about the matter (you didn't know that eh).
>

Trademarks are context-sensitive. I could easily enumerate a laundry list of reasons - legal reasons - why your argument does not hold water. What your proffer here is a pretextual reason for your actions..

Also, I would not be too quick to bet on what I did not know...;)



>
Sorry, but I don't recollect having done so because I was never aware of any "rule" that you had broken. I haven't got them memorized. However, I have advocated your banishment from THIS FORUM, your obvious affection for .NET being more suitable to the .NET forum. Your total DISaffection for VFP has done absolutely nothing to help people in the VFP (this) forum.
>

I have no disaffection for VFP. And...I totally dispute the assertion on your part that I have not helped people. The way I help people today is quite different from a few years ago. When your aggregate contributions exceed mine Jim, then you can begin to critique how I help/don't help people. Also, while you would call for my banishment, you would be A-OK with somebody like Bill Sanders staying on - in spite of his transgressions. I suppose the sin qua non for you is if you are totally 100% positive toward Fox, you will look the other way. You are living in a fantasy land if you think your wishful thinking will make a difference.



>>
>>Simply put, there is a standard for all of you - and a harsher - much more stricter standard for me...
>
>
That could be true, but your recent record (since your "return") betrays otherwise.
>

At least you admit it. As for my record, I have not broken a single rule. I have not been warned at all by Michel for any post I have made since my return a year ago.

Jim, you suffer from the cult of sentiment re: Fox. To you, any language that encourages people to look at other solutions is blasphemy - and for that transgression - the perceived offender [me] should be flogged and banished. The fact is Jim, most do not think as you. And you know what, as time as gone on, I believe opinions have changed drastically.

>>
But I wouldn't be surprised for there to be a stricter standard for those who have already been banned once. In the real world felons have much less freedom than do non-felons, so such a stance doesn't seem unusual to me in this arena.
>>

You totally miss the point here Jim. Indeed, the standard no doubt has a provision that if you have been banned once, you will fall under a stricter level of scrutiny. That said, my guess is that standard would equally apply. I would also say that you - and some others - would advocate a special JVP standard - just because of who I am and the fact that you disagree with me so much.

>
Go play in the .NET forum, John, and leve this place to the luddite po-dunkers who like THIS place.
>

Except that there are many who believe I make this place more interesting. You are clearly under some misguided belief that the community is better served with your presence than mine.....

John