>C'mon Ed, get real!
>
>1) Michel offered this "feature".
>

I have no problem with this.

>2) Michel has clearly seen that many of Vinod's suggestions are meritorious
>

No question here, either.

>3) Michel can speak for himself
>

Perhaps not - there's a PR problem with saying 'Put up or shut up.' I think the value of PUTM is pretty well established - even you seem willing to make the investment in the furture of UT by being a member.

I know that when people make requests for enhancements to my own products and offerings, I take my paying customers' requests first. Maybe that's a misplaced sense of greed or loyalty, but I'm more willing to invest time and energy developing and enhancing things where I'm paid to do this. I'm sure you find it outrageous and inexcusable that I put a whole lot more emphasis on working on things that pay my bills than adding niceties to things I don't charge for and other people can use gratis.

>4) You may not like some of the new 'features', but if that is the case then say so rather than trying to kill off the idea in general.
>

I haven't had any problems with (or commented on) any of the requests until the response today. I'm not suggesting that they don't have merit. I am saying that Michel isn't in this for nothing - he relies on the income from UT to pay his (and UT's) bills, and if people want to ask for suggestions, it'd be fair to expect them to contribute something towards the upkeep of UT.

Of course, fair and equitable treatment is a bit much to expect. Clearly, abuse and annoyance are much more in fashion.