Visual Basic .NET 2003 version

[EMW]

Hi,

Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not clear
to me) for:
- developing windows based programs
- developing ASPX for internet
- developing windows mobile applications for PDA's

Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?

thanks,
Eric

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> scripsit:

Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not clear
to me) for:
- developing windows based programs
- developing ASPX for internet
- developing windows mobile applications for PDA's

Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?

I recomment not to buy a Standard edition. Instead, buy at least the
Professional edition. The Professional edition is more expensive than
the Standard edition, but upgrading will be easier and the Professional
edition is much more powerful because it doesn't only include a single
..NET programming language.

<URL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/howtobuy/choosing.aspX>

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Cor Ligthert]

Hallo Eric,

The benefits are to much comparing VB2002 with VB2003 to mention here, it
would leave open some which there are.

However better is in my opinion to take a MSDN subscription.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/

In Holland by

http://www.microsoft.com/netherlands...on/default.asp

I hope this helps?

Cor

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

You must buy Visual Studio Pro 2003. None of the single languages allow
mobile device development.

-Chris
"EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> wrote in message
news:41**********************@dreader2.news.tiscal i.nl...

Hi,

Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not clear to me) for:
- developing windows based programs
- developing ASPX for internet
- developing windows mobile applications for PDA's

Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?

thanks,
Eric

[Nak]

Jesus, just stamp MS on your forehead!!

Buy the standard edition unless you really have enough money to buy the
professional edition. All of your desired tasks can be achieved using
VB.NET standard, so why go for more? I think the expression is "living
beyond means" or "sleeping with MS" one of those 2, I can't quite remember!

Nick.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

* "EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> scripsit:

Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not clear to me) for:
- developing windows based programs
- developing ASPX for internet
- developing windows mobile applications for PDA's

Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?

I recomment not to buy a Standard edition. Instead, buy at least the
Professional edition. The Professional edition is more expensive than
the Standard edition, but upgrading will be easier and the Professional
edition is much more powerful because it doesn't only include a single
.NET programming language.

<URL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/howtobuy/choosing.aspX>

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Nak]

Hi Chris,

Now this would be down to missing templates right?

Nick.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:ek***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

You must buy Visual Studio Pro 2003. None of the single languages allow
mobile device development.

-Chris
"EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> wrote in message
news:41**********************@dreader2.news.tiscal i.nl...

Hi,

Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not

clear

to me) for:
- developing windows based programs
- developing ASPX for internet
- developing windows mobile applications for PDA's

Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?

thanks,
Eric

[Bruce Eitman \(eMVP\)]

No, I beleive that it is tools, like debugging on a Mobile device is not
supported by the standard edition.
--
Bruce Eitman (eMVP)
Senior Engineer
beitman AT applieddata DOT net

Applied Data Systems
www.applieddata.net
An ISO 9001:2000 Registered Company
Microsoft WEP Gold-level Member

[Bruce Eitman \(eMVP\)]

While I do not disagree with your comments, based on Herfried vague
statements, the requirement to develop for Mobile Devices as Eric requested
is not supported by the standard version. Must use VS 2003 Pro.

--
Bruce Eitman (eMVP)
Senior Engineer
beitman AT applieddata DOT net

Applied Data Systems
www.applieddata.net
An ISO 9001:2000 Registered Company
Microsoft WEP Gold-level Member
"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:O5**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Jesus, just stamp MS on your forehead!!

Buy the standard edition unless you really have enough money to buy the
professional edition. All of your desired tasks can be achieved using
VB.NET standard, so why go for more? I think the expression is "living
beyond means" or "sleeping with MS" one of those 2, I can't quite remember!
Nick.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:u9****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

* "EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> scripsit:

Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not clear to me) for:
- developing windows based programs
- developing ASPX for internet
- developing windows mobile applications for PDA's

Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?

I recomment not to buy a Standard edition. Instead, buy at least the
Professional edition. The Professional edition is more expensive than
the Standard edition, but upgrading will be easier and the Professional
edition is much more powerful because it doesn't only include a single
.NET programming language.

<URL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/howtobuy/choosing.aspX>

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Nak" <[e-mail]> scripsit:

Buy the standard edition unless you really have enough money to buy the
professional edition. All of your desired tasks can be achieved using
VB.NET standard, so why go for more? I think the expression is "living
beyond means" or "sleeping with MS" one of those 2, I can't quite remember!

Sure, all tasks can be archieved without VS.NET at all too, using the
..NET SDK only. But that's IMO not the point. For "professional"
development, the Professional edition is IMO a "must have".

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

Missing templates. Missing Help documentation. Missing all of the CF
assemblies. So no, not just templates. You might be able to patch
something together with the CF stuff from Platform Builder, but you'd still
not get method and namespace filtering in the IDE and you'd have to
command-line build. IMHO it'd be a bigger pain in the ass than it's worth
to try to get anything done, especially since you might actually want to use
the controls not available on the desktop, so you couldn't even use the
Forms editor to do your layout.

-Chris
"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Chris,

Now this would be down to missing templates right?

Nick.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:ek***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

You must buy Visual Studio Pro 2003. None of the single languages allow
mobile device development.

-Chris
"EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> wrote in message
news:41**********************@dreader2.news.tiscal i.nl...

Hi,

Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not

clear

to me) for:
- developing windows based programs
- developing ASPX for internet
- developing windows mobile applications for PDA's

Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?

thanks,
Eric

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

Oh, and the emulators and the debug connectivity apps and tools. So you
couldn't debug with a single-language hack either.

-Chris
"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:el**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Missing templates. Missing Help documentation. Missing all of the CF
assemblies. So no, not just templates. You might be able to patch
something together with the CF stuff from Platform Builder, but you'd still not get method and namespace filtering in the IDE and you'd have to
command-line build. IMHO it'd be a bigger pain in the ass than it's worth
to try to get anything done, especially since you might actually want to use the controls not available on the desktop, so you couldn't even use the
Forms editor to do your layout.

-Chris
"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Chris,

Now this would be down to missing templates right?

Nick.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:ek***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

You must buy Visual Studio Pro 2003. None of the single languages allow mobile device development.

-Chris
"EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> wrote in message
news:41**********************@dreader2.news.tiscal i.nl...
> Hi,
>
> Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not clear
> to me) for:
> - developing windows based programs
> - developing ASPX for internet
> - developing windows mobile applications for PDA's
>
> Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?
>
> thanks,
> Eric
>
>

[Nak]

Hi there,

Sure, all tasks can be archieved without VS.NET at all too, using the
.NET SDK only. But that's IMO not the point. For "professional"
development, the Professional edition is IMO a "must have".

I totally resent that comment, I regard myself as a professional and I
do *not* posess the "Professional" edition of Visual Studio, so does that
make my software amateurish?

Nick.

[Nak]

Sheesh, all sounds like another big con to me, but fair enough, not everyone
is poor like myself!

Nick.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:uH*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Oh, and the emulators and the debug connectivity apps and tools. So you
couldn't debug with a single-language hack either.

-Chris
"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:el**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Missing templates. Missing Help documentation. Missing all of the CF
assemblies. So no, not just templates. You might be able to patch
something together with the CF stuff from Platform Builder, but you'd

still

not get method and namespace filtering in the IDE and you'd have to
command-line build. IMHO it'd be a bigger pain in the ass than it's worth

to try to get anything done, especially since you might actually want to

use

the controls not available on the desktop, so you couldn't even use the
Forms editor to do your layout.

-Chris
"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Chris,

Now this would be down to missing templates right?

Nick.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:ek***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> You must buy Visual Studio Pro 2003. None of the single languages

allow > mobile device development.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> "EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> wrote in message
> news:41**********************@dreader2.news.tiscal i.nl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website is not > clear
> > to me) for:
> > - developing windows based programs
> > - developing ASPX for internet
> > - developing windows mobile applications for PDA's
> >
> > Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> >
>
>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

* "Nak" <[e-mail]> scripsit:

Sure, all tasks can be archieved without VS.NET at all too, using the
.NET SDK only. But that's IMO not the point. For "professional"
development, the Professional edition is IMO a "must have".

I totally resent that comment, I regard myself as a professional and I
do *not* posess the "Professional" edition of Visual Studio, so does that
make my software amateurish?

It doesn't necessarily, but your productivity may be reduced because
lack of some features.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

Con? How so? I'm just pointing out that device development isn't really an
option without Studio Pro. The story may change with the release of Studio
'05, but today that's how it is.

-Chris
"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:eu*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Sheesh, all sounds like another big con to me, but fair enough, not everyone is poor like myself!

Nick.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:uH*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Oh, and the emulators and the debug connectivity apps and tools. So you
couldn't debug with a single-language hack either.

-Chris
"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
news:el**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Missing templates. Missing Help documentation. Missing all of the CF
assemblies. So no, not just templates. You might be able to patch
something together with the CF stuff from Platform Builder, but you'd

still

not get method and namespace filtering in the IDE and you'd have to
command-line build. IMHO it'd be a bigger pain in the ass than it's worth to try to get anything done, especially since you might actually want to

use

the controls not available on the desktop, so you couldn't even use

the Forms editor to do your layout.

-Chris
"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi Chris,
>
> Now this would be down to missing templates right?
>
> Nick.
>
> "Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ctacke[at]OpenNETCF_dot_org> wrote in message
> news:ek***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > You must buy Visual Studio Pro 2003. None of the single languages

allow

> > mobile device development.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> >
> > "EMW" <SomeOne@MicroSoftdotCom> wrote in message
> > news:41**********************@dreader2.news.tiscal i.nl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Which version (standard of professional) do I need (ms website

is not

> > clear
> > > to me) for:
> > > - developing windows based programs
> > > - developing ASPX for internet
> > > - developing windows mobile applications for PDA's
> > >
> > > Please let me know, so I can tell my boss what to buy?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Nak]

Hi Herfried,

It doesn't necessarily, but your productivity may be reduced because
lack of some features.

I do understand what you are trying to say, but productivity isnt always
down to the software your using, it's down to you, how good you are at
developing ideas with what you have. What's the old saying, "a good workman
never blames his tools". I still don't feel the need for anything other
VB.NET standard at the moment, but that is me *personally* of course, if I
want to write lets say a "plug-in" in C# I will use SharpDevelop, but I very
rarely need to do this, if I find code written in another language I will
attempt to port it to VB.NET.

Some people rely too much on the IDE nower days to do half of the coding for
them, that doesn't make you any better at coding that is for sure.

Nick.

[Nak]

Hi Chris,

Con? How so? I'm just pointing out that device development isn't really an option without Studio Pro. The story may change with the release of Studio '05, but today that's how it is.

Surely in this day and age of hi-tech modular programming they could have
included the necessary device development features in each standardized
component. I *personally* don't have the need for it at the moment anyway
but if I did I would be seriously upset if I needed to purchase an extremely
expensive piece of software to add this facility, like why not make a
"VB.NET Mobile Edition" and make it only develop software for mobile devices
then charge like £50 for it?

Nick.

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

I believe that is somewhat the plan in the next version. The reality is
that the CF stuff was a real late addition to Studio 03, and there wasn't
enough time to get it fully tested for inclusion into standard editions.
Same thing with the stand-alone SDK (which would allow integration with
things like SharpDevelop). Believe me, there's a lot of call for this from
the embedded world where the C++ IDE and compilers have been free for some
time. Trying to convince someone they now have to buy a $2000 package is a
tough sell.

-Chris

"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:Od**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Hi Chris,

Con? How so? I'm just pointing out that device development isn't

really an

option without Studio Pro. The story may change with the release of Studio

'05, but today that's how it is.

Surely in this day and age of hi-tech modular programming they could have
included the necessary device development features in each standardized
component. I *personally* don't have the need for it at the moment anyway
but if I did I would be seriously upset if I needed to purchase an

extremely expensive piece of software to add this facility, like why not make a
"VB.NET Mobile Edition" and make it only develop software for mobile devices then charge like £50 for it?

Nick.

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Nick,

* "Nak" <[e-mail]> scripsit:

It doesn't necessarily, but your productivity may be reduced because
lack of some features.
I do understand what you are trying to say, but productivity isnt always
down to the software your using, it's down to you, how good you are at
developing ideas with what you have.

I agree. But a good developer + a productive tool will be more
productive than a good developer without the tool.
What's the old saying, "a good workman never blames his tools".
I still don't feel the need for anything other VB.NET standard
at the moment, but that is me *personally* of course
I understand your point, there are cases in which you don't need the
whole VS. There are many former VB6 developers who don't need more than
the Standard version of VB.NET to get their work done. But there are
developers who want to do more, who want to mix programming languages to
save time by reusing other components and source code.
if I want to write lets say a "plug-in" in C# I will use
SharpDevelop, but I very rarely need to do this, if I find
code written in another language I will attempt to port it
to VB.NET.
Personally, I would try to keep my code VB.NET-only too, but in VS.NET,
the different programming languages + debugger are integrated. So, it's
a very good programming experience without using additional tools.
Some people rely too much on the IDE nower days to do half of the coding for
them, that doesn't make you any better at coding that is for sure.

Full ACK!

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Nick,

* "Nak" <[e-mail]> scripsit:

Con? How so? I'm just pointing out that device development isn't really

an

option without Studio Pro. The story may change with the release of

Studio

'05, but today that's how it is.

Surely in this day and age of hi-tech modular programming they could have
included the necessary device development features in each standardized
component. I *personally* don't have the need for it at the moment anyway
but if I did I would be seriously upset if I needed to purchase an extremely
expensive piece of software to add this facility, like why not make a
"VB.NET Mobile Edition" and make it only develop software for mobile devices
then charge like £50 for it?

I would prefer a standard edition of VS.NET that includes only one
programming language, but enables the user to do all that can be done
with the Professional edition, but only for a single programming
language.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Nick,

When you not succeed you can alway use Api's, windows is based on Api's

(For serious ones, this was a message I got from Nick a year ago and was
responsable for a very long thread.)

(However in this case not wrong in my opinion).

Cor

[Nak]

Hi Cor,

When you not succeed you can always use Api's, windows is based on Api's

(For serious ones, this was a message I got from Nick a year ago and was
responsible for a very long thread.)
From me? Surely this completely out of context though isn't it? Sorry my
PC has been upgraded/formatted many times since so I do not have all old
messages archived, though sometimes I wish I did! That's why I now store
all my personal files on a separate drive, but don't you just hate how every
program that now calls itself XP compatible creates a new folder in your my
documents folder? (i.e. "My Documents\Yet Another My Such And Such Files"),
you would have thought that MS would have done one for Outlook Express, "My
Documents\My Microsoft Files\Outlook Express\My Watched Threads", oh well,
different argument entirely, sorry for the digression!

Nick.

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... Hi Nick,

(However in this case not wrong in my opinion).

Cor

[Nak]

Hi Hefried,

I would prefer a standard edition of VS.NET that includes only one
programming language, but enables the user to do all that can be done
with the Professional edition, but only for a single programming
language.

Maybe in the future when there are acceptable alternatives to Microsoft. We
can but pray!

Nick.

[Nak]

Hi Chris,

I believe that is somewhat the plan in the next version. The reality is
that the CF stuff was a real late addition to Studio 03, and there wasn't
enough time to get it fully tested for inclusion into standard editions.
Aah, I suppose that makes sence, having not posessed the Professional
version myself I am unsure of *all* of the features it has included.
Same thing with the stand-alone SDK (which would allow integration with
things like SharpDevelop). Believe me, there's a lot of call for this from the embedded world where the C++ IDE and compilers have been free for some
time. Trying to convince someone they now have to buy a $2000 package is a tough sell.

Yeah, thats all too right, I like the thought of *development* being free,
using your own skills and knowledge to build makeshift solutions for
yourself and your friends with absolutly no cost other than your time,
things are so different now but I suppose people in the know, know the way.

Like one thing I would like to do lately is get hold of the source code for
my Nokia 6230 and modify it, but it's just a load of red tape everywhere, no
documentation on anything. Oh well, digression? Possibly so.

Nick.

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Nick,

First I thought it completly out of context however it is not, a lot of
programmers I see here do not use the framework, however they are completly
crazy to use Api's as sson as they see one.

(Api's were our first discussion, one of the last it was as well I remember
me).

When people are doing that, than they do not need VB profesional, any IDE
will do.

As you know I do not like that.

Cor

[Nak]

Hi Cor,

Aah, I get what you are saying now. Slight misunderstanding there on my
behalf. Maybe someone will wrap the .NET Framework into some C++ DLL's so
that they can be used in any application, would this actually work though?
Hmmm probably not.

Nick.

[Greg Burns]

This is how I would find old threads I was involved with:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...languages.vb.*

OR simply from groups.google.com:
author:nak group:microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb.*

HTH,
Greg

"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:uY**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

From me? Surely this completely out of context though isn't it? Sorry my
PC has been upgraded/formatted many times since so I do not have all old
messages archived, though sometimes I wish I did!

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

That ability already exists for the full framework (not the CF
unfortunately).

--
Chris Tacke, eMVP
Co-Founder and Advisory Board Member
www.OpenNETCF.org
---
---
Principal Partner
OpenNETCF Consulting
www.OpenNETCF.com

"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:eM**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Cor,

Aah, I get what you are saying now. Slight misunderstanding there on my behalf. Maybe someone will wrap the .NET Framework into some C++ DLL's so
that they can be used in any application, would this actually work though?
Hmmm probably not.

Nick.

[Nak]

Aaah, yes your right, I remember now....

Nick.

"Chris Tacke, eMVP" <ct****@spamfree-opennetcf.org> wrote in message
news:O5****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

That ability already exists for the full framework (not the CF
unfortunately).

--
Chris Tacke, eMVP
Co-Founder and Advisory Board Member
www.OpenNETCF.org
---
---
Principal Partner
OpenNETCF Consulting
www.OpenNETCF.com

"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:eM**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hi Cor,

Aah, I get what you are saying now. Slight misunderstanding there on

my

behalf. Maybe someone will wrap the .NET Framework into some C++ DLL's

so that they can be used in any application, would this actually work though? Hmmm probably not.

Nick.

[Nak]

Hi Greg,

Cheers for the tip :-)

Nick.

"Greg Burns" <greg_burns@DONT_SPAM_ME_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

This is how I would find old threads I was involved with:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...languages.vb.*
OR simply from groups.google.com:
author:nak group:microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb.*

HTH,
Greg

"Nak" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:uY**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

From me? Surely this completely out of context though isn't it? Sorry my PC has been upgraded/formatted many times since so I do not have all old
messages archived, though sometimes I wish I did!

[Cor Ligthert]

Greg,

Beside all other learningfull things in those threads, are that the threads
to look for when you want to learn Cockney.

:-)

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Before it is misunderstood

And a lot of other pleasant and funny messages

Cor