Ted Roche wrote: > On 8/16/07, Mark Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At the time Paul Newton asked what you were referring to, and I'm >> interested too. "Too busy" is certainly a valid reply though. Do I detect the slightest hint of sarcasm ? >> > Our thread diverged, and Paul was asking me a somewhat different question, I > think. > .... > Paul called me, and quite correctly, I think, on my comment that the > assumptions in the designs of FoxPro itself were "dated." FWIW Ted's choice of words "called me" is IMHO a little too charitable. "Called me" implies, to me, a challenge - i.e. I was challenging Ted to justify his statement (as if I knew better). In fact, rather than challenging Ted (as if I did not agree with him), I was asking Ted to clarify his assertion because I did not understand what he had in mind. > Wrestling with this one over a long weekend, I asked to withdraw the comment > as not exactly what I meant. Ted's reply did indeed only come after he had obviously given considerable thought to my post and I was quite surprised when he asked to withdraw his comment.
I'm sorry if I appear to be pedantic (over-sensitive ?), but I simply wanted to clarify the record (and not take credit when it is not warranted). Having said that, I have been told in the past that I have the knack, on occasions, of asking the right questions ! Paul Newton _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
