>>Given that the original question is yours - the onus is on you to supply context, clarification and to qualify your terms.
>>
>>The general lack of information in your question leads me to think that your confidence 'might' lack foundation. I often wonder why people are so quick to attempt to answer such non-questions - almost all of the gurus on this board are guilty of this.
>
>Michael,
>
>Don't be discouraged by this remark! Continue to ask all the questions that you like, and if more information is needed to completely answer the question, I will ask for it - as I'm sure that a few others will do as well.


I'm not Michael - I'm guessing you felt compelled to reply to me and CC Michael. Which from my perspective is an invitation to respond, either way, when responding to someone you might try to have the decency to address them first and others later. If you find the tone of my response to Michael too strong, why not spell it out to me (and feel free to CC Michael).

Do you think Bonnie's answer "SQL will out perform VFP, no question" is valid? I realize that your answer to the primary question was no - yet you seem to happily ignore that this is what and who I was responding to. Michael chose to seek clarification from me, about something that he should be clarifying.

Do you think your answer is complete?

What do you consider "all things being equal" to mean, and what are the chances of your meaning being in accordance with Michael's?