>Here we are again: the signs. I have paid attention to 'the signs'. But the fact is that all OFFICIAL statements were denials of those signs. And I paid more attention to the official statements. But indeed, it appears afterall that I may not have done some of my clients a good job by sticking to the official statements.

>You might call me naive, but it may also be the case that in fact I have been more trusting towards MS than all those MS defenders here, who preferred the signs rather than the official statements.

MS never said that there was going to be VF10. There's no case of being "trusting towards MS". What were you "trusting" them to do?

You have been naive if you refused to acknowledge any of the signs and expected a full point by point explanation for their business decision. Definitely.

I really don't know what kind of answer you want from MS. Can you give an example of the type of explanation you would like them to give?