Do you trust Microsoft to control how everybody on earth sees the Internet?

BobGuy©
And the band played on.

>Do you trust Microsoft to control how
>everybody on earth sees the Internet?

Has MS started making bi-focals? LOL :+ :+

Jim.

NO!

...and HELL NO!!

I trust them to try along with a few others...

:-)

Why...Of Course...uhh. I trust Bill with my

I trust Bill the cat more than Bill the mooch.......

Does it even really matter?
And Bill the mooch is actually Bill the giving man.
He has numerous 'foundations'.
I give the guy credit. Very intelligent.
Just doing biz.

Bill Gates actually had a very poor charitable record until Billionaire Ted shamed him into giving. Even so, Bill barely makes the grade. I do admit he is doing better though. I still trust Bill the cat more……..

When it comes to charity, what constitutes "making the grade". Do you give a higher percentage of your income to charity than Bill and Melinda Gates do (I really doubt it)?

Bill's mother was well known as a philanthropist and it was not a secret that before her death she let Bill Jr. know that he needed to do more. At the present time, the Gates foundation gives money away at an unprecedented rate. Why he does it, really isn't anybody's business.

Since I live better than the vast majority of the people in the world, yet I only give several thousand a year to charity, I'm not comfortable criticizing the charitable giving of anyone else. I guess others are.

When you're worth 50 billion dollars and you have given barely 1 billion away to people in need then you have a problem. People like Bill Gates is the reason why America is going down the tubes FAST. GREED. America has been so overwhelmed by greed and money we forgot what morals and values were all about. anyone could easily live for the rest of their lives on 1 billion dollars. that's enough money to never have to lift a finger ever again. Bill has 50 billion that's 5,000 million dollars. And he has the audacity to charge obscene prices for software. He has enough money now that he doesn't need to charge those prices anymore. He has enough money to totally rebuild NYC and take care of all those families devestated by 9-11, would he? No, like every other upscale wealthy american we expect the government to pay for everything. Anyways my whole point is, greed is ruining america and it needs to stop somewhere. why not start with the greediest of them all? why gates of course.

While we're at it why dont we just overturn the entire capitalist system and live in a communist utopia.

Gates has given 1 billion to charity (thats 1,000 million dollars) and I give him a lot of credit. He has made sure that that money actually gets to the people. Way to go Bill...Keep it up.

I'm no fan of the ethics of MS, and the fish stinks from the head, but isn't the number more like 20+ billion?

Scott

I was a little low. 52.8 billion actually. The .8 of the billion is most likely enough to live off of comfortably without ever having to lift a finger again. Then donate the other 52 billion. It's all a power hungry, richest man in the world facination. There would be absolutely no poverty in america if that 52 billion was distributed properly. but oh well

Click here for the info:

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires2002/LIRBH69.html?passListId=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&uniqueId=BH69&datatype=Person

>no poverty in america if that 52 billion was distributed properly

$52,000,000,000 / 275,000,000 People = $189.09 per person

I could live off that for years. But most would consider that poverty no matter how you distributed it.

well bill gates can do just about what he likes.he gives a way more than me .and at least he does.binladens rich look what he gave?
as for me i,m working on my seconed million.
thats because i realy screwed up makeing the first one lol.
have a nice day:+

Gates was at his peak worth about $85 Billion

and

"...In 1999, the floodgates opened. Gates pumped more than $17 billion into his charities. A year later, the organizations fused under the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation name and boasted of a total endowment of $21 billion. The foundation shells out about $1 billion a year..."

Info from Forbes.com

How many people donate about 1/4 of their net worth?

Hello,
Percentages or fractions of wealth dont really mean very much here.
Bill and his wife could give away 98% of their fortune and still have one billion dollars left to scrape by on. I am not suggesting they should do so or be pilloried for not. Only that comparisons can be misleading.
I know that we as a family would, in our opinion struggle, to maintain the lifestyle we expect, if we gave away 25% of our income. However many people in the world would not view our "struggle" as such but would wonder why we lived in such luxury on an income far in excess of anything they could ever hope for.

Personally I am glad that Bill and others do make contributions, to help the less fortunate, there are plenty who dont.

Edit - Spelling and grammar

I am well aware of what a billion is. The problem isn't the mathematical concept, it is your distorted facts. Where did you come up with the information that Gates has given less than a billion to charity. Bill and Melinda Gates endowed their foundation with twenty one billion dollars and continue to add funding. He has announced his intention to give all his wealth away rather than leave an obscene inheritance for his children. As executives go, his annual salary and bonus is relatively low, he funds charitable giving through the sale of assets, all of which has an impact on other Microsoft shareholders and undergoes the scrutiny of the SEC.

Your analysis of why America is going down the tubes fast is fascinating. I guess you were embracing the writings of Karl Marx while I tend to agree with Ayn Rand.

For some reading on the Gates foundation, Annual Report You can argue against his business practices and you might even argue about the motives behind his charibable giving but when you look at the public record, it is hard to criticize the amount or nature of contributions.

Rarely have I seen such blatant stupidity! The only way Mr. Gates could have any real money, is to sell on the open market his Microsoft stock holdings. All he has is paper. If he tried to divest any significant amount to turn it into spendable assets, the value of his paper, and that of all MS stockholders would plummet! You sit there blithely throwing around crap about billions, you can not even fathom what a billion of anything is. Gates has to date given away more money than any other person in the history of the world. And he has not finished giving. Who the hell are you to criticize another mans charity? Do you want to know what a billion is? one billion seconds ago, Christ was walking the earth!

Gates has to date given away more
>money than any other person in the history of the world.
>And he has not finished giving. Who the hell are you to
>criticize another mans charity?

ablib thinks that if he/she verifies one fact with a reference (Gates net worth) that he/she can make up the rest (level of giving)

ablib thinks that the problem with the United States today is that we don't follow a communist philosophy.

ablib confuses net worth with disposable income.

ablib has an incredibly naive understanding of the impact it would have on ordinary Americans if Microsoft stopped charging for their products because they've "already got enough money"

I can overlook the points I made above but the part of Shelly's post that I retained is the essence of my objection to what ablib states in his/her post. I admire Bill Gates for his charitable activities but even if he gave away nothing, it isn't my place to criticize. My place is to worry about what I give to charity, period!

Thanks, Shelly. As far as I'm concerned, you've just said it all. No need to add my two-cents worth, just a pat on your back (and, Steve's, too). Thanx, guys.

Thank you, Shelly.

Jeannie

Thanks also Shelly. Excellent points.

However, for the sake of accuracy, I'll add the following:

>Do you want to know what a billion is? one billion seconds ago,
>Christ was walking the earth!

Christ, as far as I know, did not walk the earth between 31 and 32 years ago. This is what one billion seconds amounts to in years. Dr. Ken - Math Forum

(Even allowing, for the usage of 1,000,000,000,000 - one trillion -, referred to in the past by some as one billion - does not equate to the correct historical time period.) :D :D :D

Which means that some of us have been alive for more than two billion seconds! LOL

Jim.

I recall that in Bill's will (hah, it rhymes) most of his fortune is to go to charity anyhow :7

That's true. You do realize that by introducing truthful information you're messing up ablib's argument, don't you? ;-)

oh well, c'est la vie..

I'm not a fan of M$, & especially their tactics as of late, but I don't think that anyone is grasping the reality of the finances involved here. I seriously doubt that Bill has 52,(or whatever) billion dollars just sitting in a bank someplace. Just because he is "worth" that much doesn't mean that he readily has that amount available on hand. The dynamics of business, (especially ones the size of M$) probably dictate that a great deal of that amount (52Bil), is tied up in the company, investments, and various interests. It takes a LOT of money to keep a business the size of M$ running, (and to buy congress and a few judges :7 ) The fact of the matter is, it's pretty much Bill's business how much he wants to donate to charity, regardless of what we think he can afford. But if he is anything like many businessmen of abundant wealth, he probably has so much of his money tied up in the business that if it were to suddenly fail, via an ElGrande catastrophic event, and hit bottom, he would lose his arse like some already have. (Unless, of course, he follows ENRON's example:+ ) As for whether or not I trust M$ to handle the future of technology... I would say not entirely! I think that if they continue to bull competitors, customers, and such as they have been doing, AND get their way... they could very well stagnate the growth of technology, in that (healthy) competition breeds innovation, and innovating often means breaking standards. If we allow M$ to dictate the standards by which the world adheres to, we will only aspire to and be limited to Microsoft's vision of what technology should be. I'm not ready to live in M$'s Candyland version of what technology should be. I run as many as 3 different brands of operating systems on my machines, and I'm very thankful that I still have a choice!!!

>I'm not ready to live in M$'s Candyland version of what
>technology should be. I run as many as 3 different brands
>of operating systems on my machines, and I'm very thankful
>that I still have a choice!!!

Yes, that's basically the way I feel too. (Slackware Linux being my favourite OS and the one I use 99.99 percent of the time)

I'd pretty much always keep a Windows installation as well though. There's still a few games I play once in a while, and also it's handy to have Windows to refer to in the interests of supporting it.

I don't generally trust criminals....

Criminals???

Tom

The question was about Microsoft, not Bill Gates.

Given the lawsuits over the last two years in which Microsoft has been found guilty of violating the law, yes...criminal.

Okay, thanks. I can go along with that pretty much. As a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I think that in today's business world, all of the major corporations have a enough skeletons in their numerous closets to populate a large graveyard. I was just curious as to whether Gates himself had had any criminal charges lodged against him.
Tom

Microsoft was found to have violated the law in that they abused their power as a monopoly. The case has not been tried in a criminal court and no Microsoft executive (including Gates) has been charged with a crime. Al can choose to refer to Microsoft or its employees as criminals but you don't often hear the government's attorneys refer to them as such. The things that the company did are all things that are common and legal in the business world (very common behavior for Microsoft's accusers); these behaviors are only unlawful when exercised by a company with a monopoly.

Steve,

That only addresses the case that vs DOJ that is currently seeking remedy for. There is also the labor case involving temporary employees. There are other cases. Microsoft hasn't been very successful in courts of law over the last few years and they have been there a lot.

Al,

I agree with you that the courts have ruled against Microsoft on a number of fronts regarding unlawful acts. I'm not trying to defend Microsoft on ethical or legal grounds (although, if we ever got together I'd love to argue face to face). My point is that there is a subtle, yet important, distinction between unlawful and criminal activity.

Bill Gates Sr., the one who now manages Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was a senior partner in one of Seattle's oldest and most prominent law offices. Young Bill Jr. was well schooled in avoiding activity that might be construed as criminal. I doubt that you will ever see Microsoft attacked in the criminal court.

What I know about Bill Gates: very, very little. Oh, one thing though, it was Gates (or his foundation) that donated the computers to the libraries around here that allowed me free use until I could get one of my own...Thanks Mr. Bill. :)

>Do you trust Microsoft to control how
>everybody on earth sees the Internet?

..................................................................

I don't know Bill Gates, I dont wish to know Bill Gates and I gues his feelings about me will probably be the same. But I just would like to know the reason for such continuous inane postings, which really make no sense.

You probably never met the guy and, and unless I'm wrong, he has done you no direct harm. His Company was found guilty of Monopolistic practices and he's only given 1 billion to charity.

I don't know and I'm still trying to fathom the animosity. Personally he's probably a nice guy with extremely poor public relations. Who knows and who cares.

We all make choices. never heard this much whining about a product we have a choice not to use.

Where do you see Gates' name in the question?

Who do you you think Microsoft is synonomous with? Bill Clinton.

Actually, I think Microsoft is a corporation. It has a Chairman, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, etc. If Gates decides to retire tomorrow, does that mean Microsoft disappears?

Al, I think Scaramouche is referring to adlib's post (#9). I don't think anyone has an issue with BobGuy's original post.

His reply is to post #0, as is the quote...

Oh I have lots of issues with it. The question was absurd to begin with, and just a cheap troll attempt to stir up passions.

"Do you trust Microsoft to control how everybody on earth sees the Internet?"

Microsoft does not, never has, and never will, control how every person on earth sees the internet. Most of the population of this planet have never even used a telephone, let alone seen the internet!

If you have not seen a pattern to some people's posts you are not very perceptive. There are some people here that never miss a chance to take a cheap shot at Microsoft, or to boost Linux. they are very selective in choosing only articles that he thinks makes MS look bad, and Linux look good. It matters not how slanted the source, as long as it suits their fanaticism.

In all the years I have posted I have never felt the need to launch an endless tirade to support a personal bias. I have warned about programs that could be harmful, but never used these forums to launch a vendetta just because I didn't like a company or person.

If all a person has to offer is propaganda to promote a personal agenda in virtually every post, that person has nothing to offer at all.

Forgive the rant, but this has been bothering me for a long time. I do not suffer fools gladly.

well said Shelly

I promote Linux, because it really is good and I very much enjoy using it. I try not to get too fanatical, though I can't say I've never been.

This is a very useful article for Linux enthusiasts to read. Read it objectively, and you may realize that you've been doing some of the very things that they point out.

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Advocacy.html

Now, I'm sure most of you can't be bothered reading the whole thing or even clicking on it so I'm going to summarize a couple of things I feel are significant, for the benefit of everyone

Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash
the competition. Linux is a good, solid product
that stands on its own

Now that is probably the most significant point.

Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is
a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.

There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

Face it, Microsoft Windows is the best solution for a great number of people. Perhaps not for me, but Hell, I view it as a choice. Enamoured with Linux though I am, I wouldn't deprive myself of the choice of booting Windows when I want to. I've been getting out, seeing a lot of different people and their computers, and their gadgets, and there's no way that these people would be happy with Linux. This leads me to...

Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular
application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom
that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive
others of their freedom.

Now whaddya think o'that?

Finally, then I'll shut my face:

Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using ``creative spelling''. If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.

However, I hearby grant everyone the priviledge of a disclaimer. The above rule doesn't apply to McCrappy Antivirus }>

Thanks for the good link and the good post Grogan.good attitude advice for all of us regardless of os.

:-)

Much of the Microsoft bashing, perhaps most of it, comes from people who have chosen to pirate software. The argument seems to be; Microsoft is greedy and evil, therefore violation of the EULA is somehow justified. There are also people who are too lazy or too stupid to make the software work right and prefer to say the program is terrible rather than admit their own failures. There are those who covet the financial well being of Microsoft stock holders; many of them would change their attitude if they knew what was in their 401k holdings.;-) There are also some MS bashers who are so unsure of themselves that they need to rationalize their choice of a different product by bashing the choice made by others.

I put people like you in a completely separate category. You have an honest preference for a different product and have sufficient intellect to argue your reasons without being insulting. You don't bash Microsoft products and don't recite the negatives except in the context of solving a problem.

Most of my career, I worked in sales. I knew the strengths and weaknesses of my competitor's products better than many of their reps. Although I could have, I never bad-mouthed competitive product to make my stuff appear better; that loses you the respect of your customer. I was always mindful that quality was partly a function of the specific needs of a given customer and there were times when the other guy would have the better option. By inviting my customers to evaluate product aspects where I knew I was strong and the other guy was weak, I could make my points without ever sounding like a mud-slinging brat. I actually enjoyed it when a competitive rep would bad mouth me or my products; those sales people are easy to beat.

Well put Steve and Shelly, I'd expect nothing less from you both. :-)

Careful, Mike, you may end on the receiving end of one of those bulls**t "don't criticize us" lawsuits! :-)

Great point of view on that advocacy article.

Scott

>Do you trust Microsoft to control how
>everybody on earth sees the Internet?
>
>
>And the band played on.


Ah....In a word...NO!

Now I'll add my comments & this will be all I have to say on the subject.

What I don't trust is ppl on a computer forum trying to discuss politics on a layman basis in a reasonable & civilsed manner, when so few of you have no idea about real world politics or in this instance real world finance. All the posts I have so far seen on a political basis ends up in name calling & the Admins having to get involved to calm a situation.

I suggest that we keep PC911 as a computer forum & leave the politics to the politicians & hotheads in a forum devoted to that kind of strife, thus we can concentrate on what we are here for, which in case anyone has forgotten, is to share our combined expertise & knowledge of TECHNICAL, computer related affairs.

IF you were a successful businessman would YOU want ppl questioning YOU about YOUR generosity or lack of it, that is a private matter & is off the topic in any case, this kind of discussion can only lead to tension between PC911 members & serves NO purpose in furthering ourselves & I want no part of it.
:-(

Others (including myself) don't agree with what those people were saying either, and they've been appropriately challenged on it. That is how we deal with nonsense like that... not by trying to impose what we think this forum should be. We let it grow naturally. It is a living thing.

Those who can't get over their differences that have been revealed in these discussions, should just stop reading them. Yes, that's it. If you don't like the way the discussion is going, just get out of it. Why even bother to see what everyone else is saying, if it's too political for you? There are hundreds of other interesting posts in the forum. Hundreds of other interesting forums on the Web, for that matter.

>Others (including myself) don't agree with what those people
>were saying either, and they've been appropriately
>challenged on it. That is how we deal with nonsense like
>that... not by trying to impose what we think this forum
>should be. We let it grow naturally. It is a living thing.
>
>Those who can't get over their differences that have been
>revealed in these discussions, should just stop reading
>them. Yes, that's it. If you don't like the way the
>discussion is going, just get out of it. Why even bother to
>see what everyone else is saying, if it's too political for
>you? There are hundreds of other interesting posts in the
>forum. Hundreds of other interesting forums on the Web, for
>that matter.


The reason I posted is that although you want PC911 to develop naturally, I (as a recent member) think that it is damaging to the forum & detracts from cultivating the comradeship that makes PC911 unique from all the other forums that you suggest. The topic posted "Brace youself" doesn't indicate the subject matter until you start to read it, anyone having opened a post is likely to want to scroll down & scan the contents at which point a reader will decide whether to post or not. I chose to post a satement which you are perfectly entitled to disagree with, as I disagee with the topic being posted in the first place. In hindsight the topic heading should have alerted me to the fact that someone was trying to stir up some comment & start a "hot topic" presumably to see how much angst he could stir up. This was never intended to be a calm & rational discussion but rather the opposite & it seems that he has won this round, sometimes a "living thing" can turn around & bite us!

I happen to think that one of the greatest strengths of this forum community is the fact that we are free to discuss whatever we want. It's self correcting to a degree. Very rare that any sort of administrative action is required.

So what are you suggesting then? We start censoring topics that don't fit in with your model of what this forum should be? Maybe I'll start with your post... in my opinion your whining is far more offensive than the trolls or any bigotted "political" views here in this thread. It detracts from the freedom we all enjoy here.

>The reason I posted is that although you want PC911 to
>develop naturally, I (as a recent member) think that it is
>damaging to the forum & detracts from cultivating the
>comradeship that makes PC911 unique from all the other
>forums that you suggest. The topic posted "Brace youself"
>doesn't indicate the subject matter until you start to read
>it, anyone having opened a post is likely to want to scroll
>down & scan the contents at which point a reader will decide
>whether to post or not. I chose to post a satement which
>you are perfectly entitled to disagree with, as I disagee
>with the topic being posted in the first place. In
>hindsight the topic heading should have alerted me to the
>fact that someone was trying to stir up some comment & start
>a "hot topic" presumably to see how much angst he could stir
>up. This was never intended to be a calm & rational
>discussion but rather the opposite & it seems that he has
>won this round, sometimes a "living thing" can turn around &
>bite us!

The personality of a thread is the responsibility of the contributors, not the original poster. One of the things some don't seem to get, is this isn't a realtime conversation. We're not sitting in some bar, pub or coffee shop, where it would be odd to sit and say nothing for an hour or a day. We're in a web forum, and nothing says you have to be slapping the keyboard in immediate response to someone with whom you have a vital disagreement.

OT posts also show what people are made of, how they handle themselves, and how they deal with ill-considered posts. One of the primary ways I judge people here is how well they can separate their OT feelings/behavior from the main forum.

It disturbs me when I see that people can't control themselves sometimes, but I would never blame an "instigator." Individual responsibility just seems to be something that some are unacquainted with in their real life, or don't feel is necessary in the context of a forum.

Right on Bob. I concur with your thoughts. They hit the spot.

Scott

Hardware Freek,

In a newsgroup forum that uses Network News Transfer protocol, it makes a lot of sense to limit off topic conversation. The reason is that users are obliged to wait for large downloads and in many cases, those with modem connections are paying for connection time. Participants in those groups have an expectation that discussions will be limited to the focus of the newsgroup.

In a web page type format like we have here, you're not really burdened with the time for downloading data. If something doesn't interest you, you simply don't expand the thread and if you change your mind about your interest level in a thread you've just opened, you can retreat with minimal time loss. Sure, a bit of time is wasted as fancy gif signatures render but the design of this site keeps that from hindering your ability to quickly scan the content of messages.

I personally don't like to see so many off topic threads that a new visitor ends up searching multiple pages to find the question they left within the last day. The problem is that there is no way to restrict or limit the off topic threads without compromising the personality of this forum.

We limit deletions of posts or threads to those that advocate illegal acts, those that use obscene language or pictures, and unwarranted personal attacks. When a moderator deletes something, we post the details and the reasons in a private newsgroup. If other moderators don't agree, we argue. Despite the fact that we don't always agree, we are able to be honest with each other and remain friends; the group is a lot better for it. There isn't anyone who feels they can be a censor without answering to the rest of the moderators (Well, Alex can if he wants but he isn't like that). Mistakes have been made but we learn from them.

Heheh, and you know how well that works in the newsgroups. Picture two days of nothing but RE: RE: RE: fighting and arguing when anyone complains about off topic posts in a newsgroup or mailing list.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with what someone has said, but when you start telling people what they should and shouldn't post, and what the purpose of the list or newsgroup is... that's when it gets ugly.

>In a newsgroup forum that uses Network News Transfer
>protocol, it makes a lot of sense to limit off topic
>conversation.

Actually I think this has been one of the more interesting OT threads in a while. OT is part of the deal here.

AFAIK that is not technically possible yet.

The answer is NO, but that applies to any single entity, not specifically Microsoft.

I wasn't suggesting that you (the moderators) delets such posts but rather I was commenting on the, shall we say, potentially explosive nature of the thread, we would all like to be mature about disagreements but there is always someone who cannot accept defeat or cope with having exposure to other ppl's views & just felt that this wasn't the place for a "hot potato" thread.

I'm happy to stand back & watch you all getting on with it though!

:D

>I'm happy to stand back & watch you all getting on with it though!

That's the spirit! I'm glad to see you say that.

We've discussed politics, religion, and gun control on this forum....and you think this topic is potentially explosive?

:D

Please define your definition of discussed.:-)

LOL, any topic in here has the potential to be explosive! Just tell shelly to clean his PC with an air canister & weigh his PSU before he buys it!

}>

I didn't know you could tell Shelly anything!}>

I don't understand the Question and where it is coming from. You will have to be more specific.

>I don't understand the Question and where it is coming from.
>You will have to be more specific.

Is it sort of like...

Where Do You Want To Go Today?

Please forgive me for that one, but it was like having a nervous tic... I just had to blurt it out :+

yes....no....maybe? I guess i'll have to wait and see if my decision to trust microsoft is good or not...hell, you've gotta trust somethings somedays! :)

I only fully trust myself & even then.............:D

EXACTLY RIGHT, FREAK! Friendly debate in the OT posts has been a cornerstone of PC911 since I first started lurking here. It's part of it's personality...........

It's interesting to see what other's points of view are on certain subjects, and perhaps it's an opportunity to learn a thing or two, AND to debate... it's a forum, why not debate? It's also interesting to see how the discussion sometimes takes a detour away from the original post, (somtimes waaaay away!) but I guess that's how it goes sometimes. Often, it's an alternative view that may really urk you, but it may get you to thinking. If something doesn't get you to thinking, is it worth reading? If I don't think a thread is worth my time or worth my input, or even relevent to me, I simply don't spend any time on it and I surf on, we all have that option. Yes, sometimes it IS a little disheartening to see a simple thread degrade in to a name calling donnybrook... (but sometimes it also makes it interesting!) }>
Back to the thread: Bob, when you originally posted, were you referring to the .NET thing? Just wanting to clarify the meaning of the original post.
Anyhowzen... I shall return! Later... I think... Gone in a puff of logic! Poof!

>Bob, when you originally posted, were you referring to the .NET thing? Just wanting to clarify the meaning of the original post.

Actually I left it deliberately vague, letting the reader deside for themselves the meaning of the question.

Good responces by the way.

The .NET thing, yeah thats fair game too.

BobGuy©
And the band played on.