>>See message #951885 and related messages in the thread.
>>
>>Please address this.
>
>Dear message #951885 ... Does that 'address' it, Jay < s >

It was addressed to Michel. I don't get your joke.

>
>More seriously though, what if some of us find it to be basically accurate? Is it then a problem?

Accuracy has nothing to do with an attack. As I interpret the rules, the content in the thread is offensive to, at least, me and that should be enough. If not then I guess I could start a staunch-republican-slam-kerry-edwards thread. If that's ok by the rules, then I have more than enough material to use.

>
>Let me offer a "technical" example.
>There was once a thread where the originator asked that the VFP Team supply an option to suppress the open file dialogue that comes up under certain circumstances but tells the user NOTHING about what is needed to be opened.
>As time went by discussion got more and more "heated", some proclaiming a definitive need and many (especially the more 'luminous' amongst us) arguing that there was positively no need for such a change because it was all rooted in "proper" programming in the first place. Eventually it died off.
>Yet, lo and behold, VFP 9 delivered the requested change. It wasn't really that either opponents or proponents were right or wrong, but the opinions expressed were indeed often overly 'direct'.
>Now some of us feel that President Bush is a 'puppet' being manipulated (figuratively speaking) by Vice-president Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his cabal of war mongers, by big business, etc. Does this statement qualify as against UT rules? If so, have I just put this thread into a loop?
>
>cheers