Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, there you go again, drawing conclusions where none are legitimate...
>>
SNIP>>
>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..

Whatever... this is not a major point in the entire discussion.

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

The wink is supposed to convey some form of friendliness?...HA!!!

>
>
>
>>
>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.

You USED TO help people - a lot. But not at all HERE for a few years now.
Your aggregation becomes smaller and smaller as time goes by and as you spout the invective you do about VFP.
I never called for your banishment from UT.
I never said anything, other than noting your (and your harem's) GLOATING that Bill Sanders is now gone, by way of "support" for Bill's recent messages to you. I can understand his frustration at your disruptive reappearance but I still can't understand your smarminess towards DavidS and his publisher. You look to start hassles/arguments/insulting where no opportunity exists EXCEPT IN YOUR MIND.
I surely do have far more regard for people who do not consistently DIS VFP on a VFP forum. There are many here who have dived into .NET but they do not set out to 'convert' everyone to their (current) way of thinking nor do they incessantly proclaim the death of VFP and the foolishness of continuing to use a "dead" product.
Sure, your harem does a bit of the above but knowing their connection to you makes theirs understandable.
>
>>>
>>>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.

I "admit" nothing of the sort! You'd best learn how to read, my friend. In fact I said the opposite.

>
>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.

Big FRIGGIN DEAL, John. IF my sentiments towards VFP cause you to continue flogging the 'VFP is dead and you are stupid to continue to use it' line it clearly is your problem and not mine.
True, I have no use for that kind of incessantly repeated stance but I have accepted that it is an idiot who keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting to get a different result.

>
>>>
>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.

Not really, John. But I surely do feel that banishment from the VFP FORUM is justified for anyone who frequents the forum with the sole purposes of crapping on people connected to magazines and crapping on people who continue to use VFP PRODUCTIVELY. In case you don't get it, most people do not like being told over and over and over and over again and again and again that they are a-holes for continuing to use VFP and that they are equally stupid to not jump on MS' latest bandwagon.
Yes, YOU are the one who does that but I don't want a special standard... I just want you OUT OF THIS FORUM.


>
>>
>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.....

The "many" you refer to are your harem and less than a handful of others. Your record on at least one other VFP site (the vote was that you should GO) tells me who is the misguided one here.
It's not that my presence helps the community that much, John, but that yours clearly is a total disservice to it.

Jim

>
>John