469,612 Members | 1,657 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,612 developers. It's quick & easy.

Pointer to String in VB2005

I'm trying to load this structure for a call to DeviceIoControl:

typedef struct _NDISUIO_QUERY_OID {
NDIS_OID Oid;
PTCHAR ptcDeviceName;
UCHAR Data[sizeof(ULONG)];
} NDISUIO_QUERY_OID, *PNDISUIO_QUERY_OID;

I created the equivalent in VB:

<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)_
Public Class NDISUIO_QUERY_OID ' nuiouser.h
Public Oid As Int32
Public ptcDeviceName As IntPtr
<MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.ByValTStr, SizeConst:=4)_
Public Data As String
End Class

What I need to proceed is: How do I get the pointer to my DeviceName string
to plug into ptcDeviceName? If it was C, I could just do ptcDeviceName =
&DeviceName -- I don't know how to do this in VB.

Thanks for any help,
Steve
Feb 9 '07 #1
92 2964
Strings are already reference types so send it as a string.

Also, don't crosspost to so many groups.

And lastly, a Google search would probably have led you to a working
implementation - you're far from teh first to be using NDIS from amanaged
code. The OpenNETCF SDF has all of this stuff fully done and tested for
example.
--
Chris Tacke - Embedded MVP
OpenNETCF Consulting
Managed Code in the Embedded World
www.opennetcf.com
--

"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:AF**********************************@microsof t.com...
I'm trying to load this structure for a call to DeviceIoControl:

typedef struct _NDISUIO_QUERY_OID {
NDIS_OID Oid;
PTCHAR ptcDeviceName;
UCHAR Data[sizeof(ULONG)];
} NDISUIO_QUERY_OID, *PNDISUIO_QUERY_OID;

I created the equivalent in VB:

<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)_
Public Class NDISUIO_QUERY_OID ' nuiouser.h
Public Oid As Int32
Public ptcDeviceName As IntPtr
<MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.ByValTStr, SizeConst:=4)_
Public Data As String
End Class

What I need to proceed is: How do I get the pointer to my DeviceName
string
to plug into ptcDeviceName? If it was C, I could just do ptcDeviceName =
&DeviceName -- I don't know how to do this in VB.

Thanks for any help,
Steve

Feb 9 '07 #2

"<ctacke/>" wrote:
Strings are already reference types so send it as a string.
I don't understand this -- are you saying my VB structure/class shouldn't
define ptcDeviceName as an IntPtr? If the structure's correct, how do I load
ptcDeviceName; i.e., get a String into a IntPtr?
>
Also, don't crosspost to so many groups.
Not sure what the issue is here. I posted to the NETCF/PPC groups because
I'm working on that platform, and posted to 3 other general VB groups because
they're specific to VB, and it seems a lot of the NETCF/PPC people use C# or
C++.
>
And lastly, a Google search would probably have led you to a working
implementation - you're far from teh first to be using NDIS from amanaged
code. The OpenNETCF SDF has all of this stuff fully done and tested for
example.
I could find NOTHING in VB -- I did a TON of Google searches before I posted
this message. Everything I've found is in C# or C++.

The specific question is: How do I get a pointer to a string in VB. Or am I
setting up the structure incorrectly?

I've used the OpenNETCF 1.4 source to get some ideas -- even though wading
through such a large code base (and it's C# not VB, so it doesn't answer my
specific question) takes a huge chunk of time, as it would with any large
system like it.
>

--
Chris Tacke - Embedded MVP
OpenNETCF Consulting
Managed Code in the Embedded World
www.opennetcf.com
--

"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:AF**********************************@microsof t.com...
I'm trying to load this structure for a call to DeviceIoControl:

typedef struct _NDISUIO_QUERY_OID {
NDIS_OID Oid;
PTCHAR ptcDeviceName;
UCHAR Data[sizeof(ULONG)];
} NDISUIO_QUERY_OID, *PNDISUIO_QUERY_OID;

I created the equivalent in VB:

<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)_
Public Class NDISUIO_QUERY_OID ' nuiouser.h
Public Oid As Int32
Public ptcDeviceName As IntPtr
<MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.ByValTStr, SizeConst:=4)_
Public Data As String
End Class

What I need to proceed is: How do I get the pointer to my DeviceName
string
to plug into ptcDeviceName? If it was C, I could just do ptcDeviceName =
&DeviceName -- I don't know how to do this in VB.

Thanks for any help,
Steve


Feb 9 '07 #3
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:04**********************************@microsof t.com...
>
"<ctacke/>" wrote:
>Strings are already reference types so send it as a string.
All groups on the MS server that start with 'microsoft.public.vb' are there
to support VB Classic (v1 thru 6), so, this question is basically white
noise in non-dotnet groups.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups..
In Loving Memory - http://www.vbsight.com/Remembrance.htm
Feb 9 '07 #4
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comschrieb
The specific question is: How do I get a pointer to a string in VB.
Or am I setting up the structure incorrectly?
Strings are reference type, thus a String within a structure is a pointer:

Public ptcDeviceName As String

Maybe you need an additional MarshalAs attribute.
Armin
Feb 9 '07 #5
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
I created the equivalent in VB:
No, you created it in VB.NET, according to your Subject and source.

Keep this *crap* out of the ClassicVB groups!

It has no place here.

Please.
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 9 '07 #6
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comschrieb:
I'm trying to load this structure for a call to DeviceIoControl:

typedef struct _NDISUIO_QUERY_OID {
NDIS_OID Oid;
PTCHAR ptcDeviceName;
UCHAR Data[sizeof(ULONG)];
} NDISUIO_QUERY_OID, *PNDISUIO_QUERY_OID;

I created the equivalent in VB:

<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)_
Public Class NDISUIO_QUERY_OID ' nuiouser.h
Public Oid As Int32
Public ptcDeviceName As IntPtr
<MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.ByValTStr, SizeConst:=4)_
Public Data As String
End Class

What I need to proceed is: How do I get the pointer to my DeviceName
string
to plug into ptcDeviceName? If it was C, I could just do ptcDeviceName =
&DeviceName -- I don't know how to do this in VB.
Declare the member simply 'As String'. In addition, set the structure's
character set ('CharSet' in 'StructLayout') to 'Auto').

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

Feb 9 '07 #7
Thanks for the heads up, Ken, didn't realize that. My apologies.

"Ken Halter" wrote:
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:04**********************************@microsof t.com...

"<ctacke/>" wrote:
Strings are already reference types so send it as a string.

All groups on the MS server that start with 'microsoft.public.vb' are there
to support VB Classic (v1 thru 6), so, this question is basically white
noise in non-dotnet groups.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups..
In Loving Memory - http://www.vbsight.com/Remembrance.htm
Feb 10 '07 #8
Another poster in the classic VB groups gave me the info that all groups
starting with 'microsoft.public.vb' were classic VB only groups, which I
didn't know. I apologized to him. I will not, however, extend that courtesy
to you, given your overly emotional response.

I've programmed since the early 70s, Fortran IV, Dartmouth Basic, Algol,
Pascal, COBOL, C, right through creating large systems in VB5/6 (some of
which are still used) and now .NET.

If you choose to continue to use VB6, an environment which I loved working
in, and still have a large code base of, then that's a choice that works for
you. But calling the work of others "crap" is not a professional or reasoned
position. Every language has it's good sides and bad sides.

"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
I created the equivalent in VB:

No, you created it in VB.NET, according to your Subject and source.

Keep this *crap* out of the ClassicVB groups!

It has no place here.

Please.
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 10 '07 #9
I removed all of the groups from this posting except this one.

mobilemobile, many of the VB6 programmers seem to be bitter. Every time
..Net comes up in one of those newsgroups, there are a handful of people who
diss it, even though they have never tried it.

I'm impressed that you're choosing to learn something new.

Have a great day.
Robin S.
---------------------------------------------------------
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:DF**********************************@microsof t.com...
Another poster in the classic VB groups gave me the info that all groups
starting with 'microsoft.public.vb' were classic VB only groups, which I
didn't know. I apologized to him. I will not, however, extend that
courtesy
to you, given your overly emotional response.

I've programmed since the early 70s, Fortran IV, Dartmouth Basic, Algol,
Pascal, COBOL, C, right through creating large systems in VB5/6 (some of
which are still used) and now .NET.

If you choose to continue to use VB6, an environment which I loved
working
in, and still have a large code base of, then that's a choice that works
for
you. But calling the work of others "crap" is not a professional or
reasoned
position. Every language has it's good sides and bad sides.

"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
>mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
I created the equivalent in VB:

No, you created it in VB.NET, according to your Subject and source.

Keep this *crap* out of the ClassicVB groups!

It has no place here.

Please.
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org

Feb 10 '07 #10
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:04:00 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
But calling the work of others "crap" is not a professional or reasoned
position. Every language has it's good sides and bad sides.
The problem is that if we get dotnet questions here then people get
confused
- it is like posting a C++ question here
Feb 10 '07 #11
You're absolutely right, J, my mistake, sorry about that.

I'm not sure if these discussions groups are moderated in any way, but I
imagine that people mistakenly posting to incorrect groups is not an uncommon
occurrence. After all, posting my question to a Classic VB forum doesn't
help me to solve my current problem.

Steve

"J French" wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:04:00 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
But calling the work of others "crap" is not a professional or reasoned
position. Every language has it's good sides and bad sides.

The problem is that if we get dotnet questions here then people get
confused
- it is like posting a C++ question here
Feb 10 '07 #12
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:11:01 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>You're absolutely right, J, my mistake, sorry about that.

I'm not sure if these discussions groups are moderated in any way, but I
imagine that people mistakenly posting to incorrect groups is not an uncommon
occurrence. After all, posting my question to a Classic VB forum doesn't
help me to solve my current problem.
It looks as if there is a bit of automatic moderation for foul
language, but we can get round that.

Mostly we are a bunch of old timers who try to pass our acquired
mistakes onto others
- not easy when 'others' are using another language

It gets quite funny when a VB'er produces a comprehensive reply for a
..net'er and neither understands why it does not work.

We are a bit cliquey - that happens over time - over time you get to
like or loathe people.
- and we do need to keep the old ( and un-renameable ) NGs clear of
obfuscation.
Feb 10 '07 #13
J French wrote:
The problem is that if we get dotnet questions here then people get
confused
- it is like posting a C++ question here
Where, in that major list of cross-posted groups is "here"? (Rhetorical
question only!)

Mike.
--

Feb 10 '07 #14
We are a bit cliquey - that happens over time - over time you get to
like or loathe people.
LOL, I like to loathe all you wonderful people!!!
OTOH, I Loathe to like you all.....
Anybody wanting to do the P2S in VB Classic just ask!
Hell, I'll even take it to the next level!!!!!
Leave it to you Clicky old farts to dig up the API Declarations ;-)
HTH, Neila

-------
Public Sub GetStringArrayFromPointer(pStringArray As Long, _
strArray() As Variant, _
lngLabelCount As Long)
'Returns an Array of strings from a Pointer
Dim lngValue As Long
Dim lngLabPtrs() As Long
Dim strValue As String

ReDim lngLabPtrs(lngLabelCount - 1)
ReDim strArray(lngLabelCount - 1)
If lngLabelCount 0 Then
'We have a pointer to an array of Pointers
'Blast them into the right slots
Call CopyMemory(lngLabPtrs(0), ByVal pStringArray, 4 *
lngLabelCount)

'Now dereference each of the pointers to get the strings
For lngValue = 0 To lngLabelCount - 1
strValue = ANSIStringFromPointer(lngLabPtrs(lngValue))
strArray(lngValue) = StripNull(strValue)
Next
End If
End Sub

Public Function ANSIStringFromPointer(ByVal lngStringPointer As Long)
As String
'Returns an ANSI string from a pointer to an ANSI string.
Dim strReturn As String
strReturn = VBA.String$(lstrlenA(ByVal lngStringPointer), 0)
Call lstrcpyA(ByVal strReturn, ByVal lngStringPointer)
ANSIStringFromPointer = strReturn
End Function

On Feb 10, 8:46 am, erew...@nowhere.uk (J French) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:11:01 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=

<mobilemob...@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
You're absolutely right, J, my mistake, sorry about that.
I'm not sure if these discussions groups are moderated in any way, but I
imagine that people mistakenly posting to incorrect groups is not an uncommon
occurrence. After all, posting my question to a Classic VB forum doesn't
help me to solve my current problem.

It looks as if there is a bit of automatic moderation for foul
language, but we can get round that.

Mostly we are a bunch of old timers who try to pass our acquired
mistakes onto others
- not easy when 'others' are using another language

It gets quite funny when a VB'er produces a comprehensive reply for a
.net'er and neither understands why it does not work.

We are a bit cliquey - that happens over time - over time you get to
like or loathe people.
- and we do need to keep the old ( and un-renameable ) NGs clear of
obfuscation.

Feb 10 '07 #15
On 2007-02-09, mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
I'm trying to load this structure for a call to DeviceIoControl:

typedef struct _NDISUIO_QUERY_OID {
NDIS_OID Oid;
PTCHAR ptcDeviceName;
UCHAR Data[sizeof(ULONG)];
} NDISUIO_QUERY_OID, *PNDISUIO_QUERY_OID;

I created the equivalent in VB:

<StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)_
Public Class NDISUIO_QUERY_OID ' nuiouser.h
Public Oid As Int32
Public ptcDeviceName As IntPtr
<MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.ByValTStr, SizeConst:=4)_
Public Data As String
End Class

What I need to proceed is: How do I get the pointer to my DeviceName string
to plug into ptcDeviceName? If it was C, I could just do ptcDeviceName =
&DeviceName -- I don't know how to do this in VB.

Thanks for any help,
Steve
Did anyone actually answer your question?

--
Tom Shelton
Feb 11 '07 #16
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
But calling the work of others "crap" is not a professional or reasoned
position. Every language has it's good sides and bad sides.
Try reading this again:
"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
>Keep this *crap* out of the ClassicVB groups!

It has no place here.

Please.
In *no way* was I referring to anything other than your post itself. And, yes, it
is nothing shy of unmitigated crapola, in _some_ of the groups to which you spewed
it. Further, my response was hardly directed solely at you. That's a massive
misinterpretation of your relative importance in this universe. HTH!
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 12 '07 #17
As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion group
incorrectly must occur here and there. A simple "sorry, this isn't a .NET
forum" would have sufficed. Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only, and it was the first time I had posted to a VB forum
of any kind. I took a guess.

Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation. Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not, has a long
list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the migration path from VB6
to VB.NET among other things.

I think it would be reasonable to assume that it simply bugged you that a
VB.NET user wandered into your clubhouse, that there is enmity there. The
funny part of it -- I also have a large VB6 code base.

Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
..NET.

All of which is not a "professional or reasoned position".

"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
But calling the work of others "crap" is not a professional or reasoned
position. Every language has it's good sides and bad sides.

Try reading this again:
"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
Keep this *crap* out of the ClassicVB groups!

It has no place here.

Please.

In *no way* was I referring to anything other than your post itself. And, yes, it
is nothing shy of unmitigated crapola, in _some_ of the groups to which you spewed
it. Further, my response was hardly directed solely at you. That's a massive
misinterpretation of your relative importance in this universe. HTH!
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 13 '07 #18
That's true of any group, J, not just the old ones. It's not a perfect world
though -- there's bound to be a wayward post.

"J French" wrote:
- and we do need to keep the old ( and un-renameable ) NGs clear of
obfuscation.
Feb 13 '07 #19
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion group
incorrectly must occur here and there.
It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to many.
A simple "sorry, this isn't a .NET
forum" would have sufficed.
Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.
Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,
That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
".dotnet." in their names.
and it was the first time I had posted to a VB forum
of any kind. I took a guess.
No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully, others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in the future.
Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.
Bite me.
Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not, has a long
list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the migration path from VB6
to VB.NET among other things.
Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints" as opposed
to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one with a bias.
I think it would be reasonable to assume that it simply bugged you that a
VB.NET user wandered into your clubhouse, that there is enmity there.
Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)
The funny part of it -- I also have a large VB6 code base.
Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.
Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
.NET.
If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of us.
Your obvious defensiveness aside.
All of which is not a "professional or reasoned position".
What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 13 '07 #20


"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion group
incorrectly must occur here and there.

It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to many.
That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.
A simple "sorry, this isn't a .NET
forum" would have sufficed.

Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
".dotnet." in their names.
True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked. I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.
>
and it was the first time I had posted to a VB forum
of any kind. I took a guess.

No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully, others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in the future.
The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted. Angry
responses to simple mistakes will normally only be seen by the individual
poster.

Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever. You
can either get angry or just let it go.
>
Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

Bite me.
I sort of expected this level of conversation ...
>
Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not, has a long
list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the migration path from VB6
to VB.NET among other things.

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints" as opposed
to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one with a bias.
To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft. And I consider constructions like
"Visual Basic.not" to be childish.
>
I think it would be reasonable to assume that it simply bugged you that a
VB.NET user wandered into your clubhouse, that there is enmity there.

Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)
It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up! Tell me
what you really think!
>
The funny part of it -- I also have a large VB6 code base.

Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.
My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6 user.
I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.
Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
.NET.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of us.
Your obvious defensiveness aside.
True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive, given that I use both
VB6 and .NET. Perhaps this particular response of yours was just filler --
it doesn't make much sense.
>
All of which is not a "professional or reasoned position".

What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>
I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 13 '07 #21
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in
message news:6C**********************************@microsof t.com
>>Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not,
has a long list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the
migration path from VB6 to VB.NET among other things.

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as
"complaints" as opposed to "statements of reality" definitely
positions _you_ as the one with a bias.

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.
and yet you decide to use VB.Net thereby practically begging them to give
you the shaft again when VB.Next comes along

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

Feb 13 '07 #22
Although this thread has already gone long, I'll toss my two cents in.
Posting to five or six groups is too much. If you're programming in VB or
VB.NET and you're talking to SQL server, it might make sense to post a
single message to the appropriate VB or VB.NET group and the SQL server
group, but it never makes sense to post to that many groups. It's annoying
to people to read many groups on a daily basis in exactly the same way
people sitting in a coffee shop might be annoyed by someone shouting his
order at the top of his lungs, blocking our their conversations. If you're
not sure which group should get the post, pick *one*. If you don't get a
reply in a day or if the reply indicates that you've picked a group that's
off-target, send to another.

Paul T.

"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:6C**********************************@microsof t.com...
>

"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
>mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion
group
incorrectly must occur here and there.

It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to
many.

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.
A simple "sorry, this isn't a .NET
forum" would have sufficed.

Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.

Not sure what you mean by that.
Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the
word
".dotnet." in their names.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked. I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out
for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.
>>
and it was the first time I had posted to a VB forum
of any kind. I took a guess.

No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully,
others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in
the future.

The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted. Angry
responses to simple mistakes will normally only be seen by the individual
poster.

Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever. You
can either get angry or just let it go.
>>
Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was
something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

Bite me.

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...
>>
Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not, has
a long
list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the migration path
from VB6
to VB.NET among other things.

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints"
as opposed
to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one with a
bias.

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft. And I consider constructions
like
"Visual Basic.not" to be childish.
>>
I think it would be reasonable to assume that it simply bugged you that
a
VB.NET user wandered into your clubhouse, that there is enmity there.

Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)

It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up! Tell
me
what you really think!
>>
The funny part of it -- I also have a large VB6 code base.

Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only
Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.

My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6 user.
I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world
into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.
Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now
using
.NET.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the
rest of us.
Your obvious defensiveness aside.

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide
a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive, given that I use
both
VB6 and .NET. Perhaps this particular response of yours was just
filler --
it doesn't make much sense.
>>
All of which is not a "professional or reasoned position".

What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>

I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!
>--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org

Feb 13 '07 #23
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
>mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>>As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion group
incorrectly must occur here and there.

It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to many.

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.
Apparently.
>>A simple "sorry, this isn't a .NET
forum" would have sufficed.

Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.

Not sure what you mean by that.
Hence, the tediousness of this thread. When you understand that, this can die.
>>Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
".dotnet." in their names.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked.
They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long as
you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
confuse their customers.
I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.
Uh huh.
>>and it was the first time I had posted to a VB forum
of any kind. I took a guess.

No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully, others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in the
future.

The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted.
And continue to.
Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.
You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s), and
incapable of independent discovery?
>>Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

Bite me.

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...
Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.
>>Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not, has a long
list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the migration path from VB6
to VB.NET among other things.

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints" as
opposed to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one with a
bias.

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.
And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...
And I consider constructions like "Visual Basic.not" to be childish.
Although, yes, we'd already established your superiority complex.
>>I think it would be reasonable to assume that it simply bugged you that a
VB.NET user wandered into your clubhouse, that there is enmity there.

Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)

It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up! Tell me
what you really think!
What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe, attempting
to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

:-P
>>The funny part of it -- I also have a large VB6 code base.

Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.

My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6 user.
Attacking? <LOL>
I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.
Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God told
me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the mirror
out of his hand?!?"
>>Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
.NET.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of
us. Your obvious defensiveness aside.

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.
Yep.
I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive,
I'm not sure, either, though a seemingly high percentage of VFred users seem to fall
into both categories. I think there's a relationship there, myself. Fwiw, my point
was that you didn't seem to be evangelizing, just overly defensive. Either that, or
prudishly childlike, in that you took some sort of personal offense at the word
"crap."
>>All of which is not a "professional or reasoned position".

What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>

I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!
There ya go. :-)
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 13 '07 #24
If you two want to continue to rant about which versiuon of VB sucks less
and how usenet works that's fine, but please remove the pocketpc.developer
and compactframework groups from the continued banter. It's even more
off-topic for those groups that the faux pas of the .NET question in a VB6
group appears to have been.
--
Chris Tacke - Embedded MVP
OpenNETCF Consulting
Managed Code in the Embedded World
www.opennetcf.com
--

"Karl E. Peterson" <ka**@mvps.orgwrote in message
news:eN**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
>>mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion
group
incorrectly must occur here and there.

It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to
many.

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.

Apparently.
>>>A simple "sorry, this isn't a .NET
forum" would have sufficed.

Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Hence, the tediousness of this thread. When you understand that, this can
die.
>>>Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the
word
".dotnet." in their names.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups
that
are not clearly marked.

They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as
long as you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best
efforts to confuse their customers.
>I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.

Uh huh.
>>>and it was the first time I had posted to a VB forum
of any kind. I took a guess.

No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully,
others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in
the
future.

The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted.

And continue to.
>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their
direction(s), and incapable of independent discovery?
>>>Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was
something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

Bite me.

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.
>>>Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not, has
a long
list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the migration path
from VB6
to VB.NET among other things.

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints"
as
opposed to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one
with a
bias.

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...
>And I consider constructions like "Visual Basic.not" to be childish.

Although, yes, we'd already established your superiority complex.
>>>I think it would be reasonable to assume that it simply bugged you that
a
VB.NET user wandered into your clubhouse, that there is enmity there.

Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)

It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you
directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB
forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up!
Tell me
what you really think!

What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

:-P
>>>The funny part of it -- I also have a large VB6 code base.

Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only
Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.

My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6
user.

Attacking? <LOL>
>I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world
into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks
'God told me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone
please take the mirror out of his hand?!?"
>>>Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now
using
.NET.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the
rest of
us. Your obvious defensiveness aside.

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide
a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

Yep.
>I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive,

I'm not sure, either, though a seemingly high percentage of VFred users
seem to fall into both categories. I think there's a relationship there,
myself. Fwiw, my point was that you didn't seem to be evangelizing, just
overly defensive. Either that, or prudishly childlike, in that you took
some sort of personal offense at the word "crap."
>>>All of which is not a "professional or reasoned position".

What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>

I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!

There ya go. :-)
--
.NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org

Feb 13 '07 #25
<ctacke/<ctacke/wrote:
If you two want to continue to rant about which versiuon of VB sucks less
and how usenet works that's fine, but please remove the pocketpc.developer
and compactframework groups from the continued banter. It's even more
off-topic for those groups that the faux pas of the .NET question in a VB6
group appears to have been.
Point taken. Trimmed those two from the FU2. Thanks!
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 13 '07 #26


"Bob Butler" wrote:
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in
message news:6C**********************************@microsof t.com
>Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not,
has a long list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the
migration path from VB6 to VB.NET among other things.

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as
"complaints" as opposed to "statements of reality" definitely
positions _you_ as the one with a bias.
To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

and yet you decide to use VB.Net thereby practically begging them to give
you the shaft again when VB.Next comes along

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

Hey, I can't disagree with you.

I do a lot of contracting work -- I see a lot more for .NET than Classic VB,
so I felt I had to learn it.

It's sort of the life of the programmer nowadays -- have to keep learning
stuff.
Feb 13 '07 #27


"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion group
incorrectly must occur here and there.

It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to many.
That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.

Apparently.
Apparently.
>
>A simple "sorry, this isn't a .NET
forum" would have sufficed.

Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.
Not sure what you mean by that.

Hence, the tediousness of this thread. When you understand that, this can die.
Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.
>
>Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
".dotnet." in their names.
True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked.

They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long as
you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
confuse their customers.
In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.
>
I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.

Uh huh.
It's good to be reasonable.
>
>and it was the first time I had posted to a VB forum
of any kind. I took a guess.

No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully, others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in the
future.
The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted.

And continue to.
Hey, you can always stop posting to this thread.
>
Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s), and
incapable of independent discovery?
Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?
>
>Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

Bite me.
I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.
Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.
>
>Your website, with a
title that switches between Visual Basic.net and Visual Basic.not, has a long
list of complaints concerning the poor quality of the migration path from VB6
to VB.NET among other things.

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints" as
opposed to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one with a
bias.
To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...
That was lame. Although I suppose your behavior can be understood -- it's
easier to be angry at some anonymous poster. It certainly won't do any good
to get mad at Microsoft. It's not like they're going to change what they're
doing.
>
And I consider constructions like "Visual Basic.not" to be childish.

Although, yes, we'd already established your superiority complex.
I suppose I could recycle your Psych 101 line here (right back at ya), but
I'll just say I don't think I'm superior, I just think you're rude.
>
>I think it would be reasonable to assume that it simply bugged you that a
VB.NET user wandered into your clubhouse, that there is enmity there.

Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)
It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up! Tell me
what you really think!

What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe, attempting
to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.
This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?
:-P
>The funny part of it -- I also have a large VB6 code base.

Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.
My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6 user.

Attacking? <LOL>
Yes, attacking. Perhaps you think you can lash out at others due to some
frustration, but I find it unacceptable.
>
I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God told
me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the mirror
out of his hand?!?"
It's funny you mention a politician here -- it's a classic political ploy to
accuse your opponents of the exact behavior you yourself are exhibiting.
>
>Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
.NET.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of
us. Your obvious defensiveness aside.
True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

Yep.
So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?
>
I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive,

I'm not sure, either, though a seemingly high percentage of VFred users seem to fall
into both categories. I think there's a relationship there, myself. Fwiw, my point
was that you didn't seem to be evangelizing, just overly defensive. Either that, or
prudishly childlike, in that you took some sort of personal offense at the word
"crap."
It wasn't the word, it was the content. You were being nasty on purpose.
>
>All of which is not a "professional or reasoned position".

What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>
I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!

There ya go. :-)
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 13 '07 #28
In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.
I think that's like saying that Delphi is a newer flavour of Pascal...the
difference is that the makers of Delphi had the sense to realize that they
were departing from the standard Pascal framework and so they named the
language something else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly in either camp in terms of which
language is "better", but I do think that Microsoft made a big mistake in
using a similar name...not to mention allowing VC++ users to migrate
seamlessly without offering a similar path to VB users.

Rob
Feb 13 '07 #29
I didn't fully understand Chris' response, and I got no response to my
request for clarification. The VB.NET response was more explicit. So to me
the VB.NET response was valuable.

"Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" wrote:
No, Chris replied to you to the effect of using a string, not an IntPtr, as
the type of the name field in the structure. So, you got two, nearly
identical replies, one from the Compact Framework group and one from the
VB.NET group.

Paul T.

"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:2C**********************************@microsof t.com...
There doesn't seem to be many VB users in the NETCF or PPC groups -- hence
the VB posts.

The only response I've gotten on my issue (i.e., not cross-posting or this
nonsense with Karl) is from the VB.NET group.

"Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" wrote:
Multi-post, yes. That wouldn't have been the right thing to do here,
either. A single post to the Compact Framework group would have gotten
an
answer and no second post would have been required.

Paul T.

"<ctacke/>" <ctacke[@]opennetcf[dot]comwrote in message
news:us**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
What are you talking about Paul, you and I complain all the time when
people multi-post instead of cross posting.

-Chris
"Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" <p space tobey no spam AT no instrument no spam
DOT
comwrote in message news:ul**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in
message
news:8C**********************************@microsof t.com...
When I have done what you suggest (posting to one group, waiting for
a
response, post to another group), I've gotten yelled at for not
cross-posting.
Not by anyone I've ever seen! I can't recall a single event in the
several years I've been a MVP and replied to thousands of posts that
anyone in any of the groups I read has complained that someone
*hasn't*
cross-posted... You might have gotten hit for posting to an off-topic
group, as I mentioned, but your second post should have been
on-target,
if that was the case.

It's funny, all these responses seem to be complaining about the time
spent
viewing a post, when the responses most certainly take more time to
write
than it would to skim a post and ignore it.
Believe me, I ignored it to begin with. You have to think a bit about
contaminating the archives, too. Now you've got a post that's
completely
off-topic in various groups that someone will find with GoogleGroups
during a search and will have to read to make sure it's not an answer
to
a question they have. By posting to five groups, you've done that in
five different places.

Paul T.





Feb 13 '07 #30
mobilemobile wrote:
>
"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
>mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>>As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion group
incorrectly must occur here and there.
It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to many.

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.

"not much"

repeated

several times

every day

for more than six years.
Yeah, that's done it to me, too.
Bob
--
Feb 13 '07 #31
mobilemobile wrote:
>
It's sort of the life of the programmer nowadays -- have to keep learning
stuff.

What makes you think "nowadays" could have any bearing whatsoever?

Bob
--
Feb 13 '07 #32
And...? Yes, the response was valuable and you might decide, based on that,
to post to the VB.NET group first from now on. Since you clearly knew that
what the Compact Framework group was like, I find it hard to believe that
you consciously thought that cross-posting to five or six groups was the
right thing to do for the community...

Paul T.

"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:5A**********************************@microsof t.com...
>I didn't fully understand Chris' response, and I got no response to my
request for clarification. The VB.NET response was more explicit. So to
me
the VB.NET response was valuable.

Feb 13 '07 #33


"Robert Morley" wrote:
not to mention allowing VC++ users to migrate
seamlessly without offering a similar path to VB users.
Amen to that.

Feb 13 '07 #34
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.
That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"
>>>>Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
".dotnet." in their names.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked.

They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long
as you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
confuse their customers.

In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.
Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.
>>I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.

Uh huh.

It's good to be reasonable.
Says the guy kicking the sand on the picnikers and demanding an apology. <LOL>
>>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
and incapable of independent discovery?

Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?
As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that category.
>>>>Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

Bite me.

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.

Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.
Masochism at its finest.
>>To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...

That was lame.
I understand you're having issues understanding your own motives and practices.
It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.
Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?
>What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?
Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.
>Attacking? <LOL>

Yes, attacking. Perhaps you think you can lash out at others due to some
frustration, but I find it unacceptable.
"Wah!"
>>I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God
told me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the
mirror out of his hand?!?"

It's funny you mention a politician here -- it's a classic political ploy to
accuse your opponents of the exact behavior you yourself are exhibiting.
Put down the mirror.
>>>>Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
.NET.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of
us. Your obvious defensiveness aside.

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

Yep.

So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?
I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.
>offense at the word "crap."

It wasn't the word, it was the content. You were being nasty on purpose.
"Wah!"
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 14 '07 #35


"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.

That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"
I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.
My position is perfectly defensible. What was indefensible was your initial
(and continuing) rudeness.
>
>>>Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
under Visual Basic only,

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
".dotnet." in their names.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked.

They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long
as you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
confuse their customers.
In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.

Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.
Give me an example of this. The code is very similar: loops, control
structures etc etc. They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there. But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated, and VB.NET is
now VB. No matter if you agree with the "advancements" in the language, the
language is still VB.
>
>I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.

Uh huh.
It's good to be reasonable.

Says the guy kicking the sand on the picnikers and demanding an apology. <LOL>
An apology would be reasonable. I apologized to Ken for posting to the
wrong group for instance. If you apologize for your over-the-top response,
then I will apologize to you for posting to the wrong group. Until then, I'm
withholding that apology.

Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.
>
>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
and incapable of independent discovery?
Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that category.
That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.
>
>>>Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.

Bite me.

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.
Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.

Masochism at its finest.
Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.
>
>To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...
That was lame.

I understand you're having issues understanding your own motives and practices.
My only motive here is to attempt to get you to admit that you were being
rude.
>
It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?
Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
type of allegiance.

Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point. I
can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology, and I'm always
interested in new tech. OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc. And I am still not
nearly as comfortable with VB.NET as I was with VB6.

But thanks for your response here -- it felt honest and I appreciate that.
>
What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.
This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.
You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post. You had no
idea what kind of personality or behavior I had. And yet you fired away.
>
Attacking? <LOL>
Yes, attacking. Perhaps you think you can lash out at others due to some
frustration, but I find it unacceptable.

"Wah!"
From your response, it seems you now agree you were attacking me.

BTW, if "Wah!" is your only available response, perhaps it would be better
for you if you just didn't respond at all.
>
>I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God
told me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the
mirror out of his hand?!?"
It's funny you mention a politician here -- it's a classic political ploy to
accuse your opponents of the exact behavior you yourself are exhibiting.

Put down the mirror.
Stop acting like a politician.

Clearly your comment about "selling out" has proven my assumption about your
feelings.
>
>>>Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
.NET.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of
us. Your obvious defensiveness aside.

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

Yep.
So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?

I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.
An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.
>
offense at the word "crap."
It wasn't the word, it was the content. You were being nasty on purpose.

"Wah!"
So, can I take from this that you are acknowledging that your behavior was
nasty?
Feb 14 '07 #36
>They took things away that were in VB6 that I really miss, like Variants,

Dude, you just opened the door to another Pandora's Box. Variants by nature
are evil. Or so I've been taught.

- Kev
Feb 14 '07 #37
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0800, mobilemobile
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
type of allegiance.
Apparently, your view is so myopic that you can't see the forrest for
the trees.

The point is that MS's move to VB.NET is change for change's sake and
nothing more. The part you somehow seem to be missing is that every
line of code that you re-write/re-test/re-deploy is costing *someone*
(your employer, the end user, whomever) money that they should not
have had to spend. Unless you're working for free, your attitude of
"I'm getting paid so who cares." is *indeed* selling out, given the
statements you've made in this thread. You're (the collective you)
willingness to grease up and bend over will just make it worse the
next time around.

Get some backbone and tell MS to, "Go pound sand." There are plenty
of alternatives to VB.NET so pick one and move on.

Bryan
__________________________________________________ _______
Bryan Stafford "Don't need no more lies"
New Vision Software - Neil Young -
www.mvps.org/vbvision Living With War : The Restless Consumer
al*************@mvps.org
Feb 14 '07 #38
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>>Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.

That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"

I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.
You can rot, waiting, too.
>Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.

Give me an example of this.
Query the net for any CRC32 example code.
They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there.
It's been called many things, including a "Death by a 1000 cuts." Everyone bled.
But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated,
They don't know the meaning of the word!
Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.
Again, I'll remind you, you're NOT in a civilized world. HTH!
>>>>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
and incapable of independent discovery?

Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that
category.

That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.
Hardly.
>>Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.

Masochism at its finest.

Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.
You just beg others to do so, so you can "feel the pain."
>>It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
Obviously, there's *something* to "believe in" or you wouldn't be mad at Microsoft.
Perhaps you believe a customer ought be treated with some shred of respect? Dig
deep. I'm sure you can find the words. Where would you be if you treated your
customers the same way Microsoft does? Or, do you feel that "Anything For A Buck!"
is an appropriate business motto? As the tagline says -- "It's About Trust!" --
nothing more.
Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point.
Then you're a moron, and my initial assessment only underestimated the degree. I
actually disagree with that, though, and think you couldn't possibly be that daft.
That you're only jumping to conclusions here, and actually can come around to
understanding.
can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology,
And as such, it's indeed interesting. Not worth investing in, from my perspective,
as I don't "do" disposable code and am not willing to be at the mercy of someone
else telling me when it's time for a rewrite (again).
OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc.
Repeat after me: "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", ...
>>>What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.

You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post.
Wrong.
>>So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?

I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.

An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.
"Better" is a generalization. Arguments could be made, but what's the point?
But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.
It's far from inconceivable, yeah.
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 14 '07 #39
"mobilemobile" <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in
message news:63**********************************@microsof t.com
But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET
superior to VB6 in certain cases.
Free clue: the technical merits of a given language are only part of what
needs to go into the decision to use it for anything more than throw-away
apps. Nothing MS can do with "VB" at this point would ever convince me that
they truly understand how badly the screwed up and that they won't do it
again. Anybody committing resources to VB.Net deserves whatever happens
to them.

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

Feb 14 '07 #40


"Kevin Provance" wrote:
They took things away that were in VB6 that I really miss, like Variants,

Dude, you just opened the door to another Pandora's Box. Variants by nature
are evil. Or so I've been taught.

- Kev
Yeah, I've heard that too. But, man are they useful for creating generic
utilities.
Feb 14 '07 #41
Karl, this is my last response to you. I'm not reading your post quoted below.

Elsewhere in this thread are posts where at least one other person in this
group understands my position, and I feel content to leave it at that. I
have all the answers I need.

I will not be reading any more of your posts.

Have a good one, Karl.

Steve

"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.

That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"
I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.

You can rot, waiting, too.
Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.
Give me an example of this.

Query the net for any CRC32 example code.
They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there.

It's been called many things, including a "Death by a 1000 cuts." Everyone bled.
But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated,

They don't know the meaning of the word!
Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.

Again, I'll remind you, you're NOT in a civilized world. HTH!
>>>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
and incapable of independent discovery?

Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that
category.
That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.

Hardly.
>Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.

Masochism at its finest.
Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.

You just beg others to do so, so you can "feel the pain."
>It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?
Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.

Obviously, there's *something* to "believe in" or you wouldn't be mad at Microsoft.
Perhaps you believe a customer ought be treated with some shred of respect? Dig
deep. I'm sure you can find the words. Where would you be if you treated your
customers the same way Microsoft does? Or, do you feel that "Anything For A Buck!"
is an appropriate business motto? As the tagline says -- "It's About Trust!" --
nothing more.
Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point.

Then you're a moron, and my initial assessment only underestimated the degree. I
actually disagree with that, though, and think you couldn't possibly be that daft.
That you're only jumping to conclusions here, and actually can come around to
understanding.
can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology,

And as such, it's indeed interesting. Not worth investing in, from my perspective,
as I don't "do" disposable code and am not willing to be at the mercy of someone
else telling me when it's time for a rewrite (again).
OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc.

Repeat after me: "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", ...
>>What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.
You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post.

Wrong.
>So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?

I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.
An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.

"Better" is a generalization. Arguments could be made, but what's the point?
But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.

It's far from inconceivable, yeah.
--
..NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org
Feb 14 '07 #42


"alpine" wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0800, mobilemobile
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?
Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
type of allegiance.

Apparently, your view is so myopic that you can't see the forrest for
the trees.

The point is that MS's move to VB.NET is change for change's sake and
nothing more. The part you somehow seem to be missing is that every
line of code that you re-write/re-test/re-deploy is costing *someone*
(your employer, the end user, whomever) money that they should not
have had to spend. Unless you're working for free, your attitude of
"I'm getting paid so who cares." is *indeed* selling out, given the
statements you've made in this thread. You're (the collective you)
willingness to grease up and bend over will just make it worse the
next time around.

Get some backbone and tell MS to, "Go pound sand." There are plenty
of alternatives to VB.NET so pick one and move on.

Bryan
__________________________________________________ _______
Bryan Stafford "Don't need no more lies"
New Vision Software - Neil Young -
www.mvps.org/vbvision Living With War : The Restless Consumer
al*************@mvps.org
Wow.

I get paid most of the time to do new software development. The people who
pay for my services are the same people who usually decide what language and
platform to use.

If I do software maintenance, then I will use whatever language the software
is written in.

As far as "selling out", I don't get this -- I don't understand your
sentiment. Programming is my living, a way to make an income. I do what I
have to do. I have no control over the market. I not only have VB6 and
VB.NET, but also some C#, and some Java, some PHP for smaller projects,
Oracle PL/SQL. I'll learn what I have to in order to make a living.

I'm not sure what kind of forest you live in, but the forest I've been
plugging through has involved starting with punch cards, ecstatic with the
first CRT screens so I didn't have to listen to those damned noisy teletypes,
saving files on paper tape. I've had to learn so many languages the one
thing I know about programming is change.
Feb 14 '07 #43
mobilemobile wrote:
In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.
That's ... an interesting view.

But, having my own 30+ years and 30+ languages behind me, my opinion is
almost the opposite. Without 10+ years of VB1-2-3-4-5-6 expectations,
learning VFred would probably have been a little easier.

It is, after all, with a few exceptions, mechanically translatable to/from C#.
Bob
--
are you using some web-foofy interface that ignores Followup-To settings,
or are you doing that by hand to be annoying?
Feb 14 '07 #44
mobilemobile wrote:
>
The code is very similar: loops, control
structures etc etc. They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there.

You "miss" Variants?

Wow.
That's, um ... surprising.
But at the same time, in a specifically newsgroup-oriented way, I find it liberating.

bye!
Bob
--
Feb 14 '07 #45
["Followup-To:" header set to microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb.]
On 2007-02-14, mobilemobile <mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>

"Kevin Provance" wrote:
>They took things away that were in VB6 that I really miss, like Variants,

Dude, you just opened the door to another Pandora's Box. Variants by nature
are evil. Or so I've been taught.

- Kev

Yeah, I've heard that too. But, man are they useful for creating generic
utilities.
..NET has better facilities for that then Variant. Especially in 2005.

Hint:
Generics

--
Tom Shelton
Feb 14 '07 #46
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:03:01 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>That's true of any group, J, not just the old ones. It's not a perfect world
though -- there's bound to be a wayward post.
True, but the problem with Fred.Net posts is that sometimes one can't
tell what language they are really using.
Feb 14 '07 #47
On 2007-02-14, J French <er*****@nowhere.ukwrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:03:01 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>>That's true of any group, J, not just the old ones. It's not a perfect world
though -- there's bound to be a wayward post.

True, but the problem with Fred.Net posts is that sometimes one can't
tell what language they are really using.
Maybe because they are so similar :)

--
Tom Shelton
Feb 14 '07 #48
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:17:30 -0600, Tom Shelton
<to*********@comcastXXXXXXX.netwrote:
>On 2007-02-14, J French <er*****@nowhere.ukwrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:03:01 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>>>That's true of any group, J, not just the old ones. It's not a perfect world
though -- there's bound to be a wayward post.

True, but the problem with Fred.Net posts is that sometimes one can't
tell what language they are really using.
>Maybe because they are so similar :)
LOL !
Feb 14 '07 #49
Tom Shelton wrote:
On 2007-02-14, J French <er*****@nowhere.ukwrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:03:01 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=
<mo**********@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>>That's true of any group, J, not just the old ones. It's not a perfect world
though -- there's bound to be a wayward post.
True, but the problem with Fred.Net posts is that sometimes one can't
tell what language they are really using.

Maybe because they are so similar :)

similar LOOKING.

Q.E.D.
--
Feb 14 '07 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

2 posts views Thread by Jerry Spence1 | last post: by
10 posts views Thread by Charles Hunt | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Galen Somerville | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by penguin | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by beersa | last post: by
15 posts views Thread by Aalaan | last post: by
reply views Thread by devrayhaan | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.