>Bill,
>
>>I still stand by my statement -- I'd bet it met with MSFT's marketing's approval. I could be right, I could be wrong. I'd bet I'm right.
>
>Do you mean that you'd bet that "MSFT marketing" saw and approved of the brief mention in SDTimes before it went to print, or that you'd bet that "MSFT marketing" (whoever you think that refers to) would have approved of it had they seen it before it went to print?
>
>One is much more "conspiracy theory" oriented than the other, in my opinion.

I don't know which is which, but I meant the latter.

Bill