I have no idea what was in that e-mail so I can not comment on that.

The point is so many people, JVP included, bitched about who should be paying, who should get free PUTM, whether or not the UT should be free to all or all should pay, blah, blah, blah. So now there is exactly 1 distinction -- paying members and non-paying members. MVP is a reward determined by MS, not the UT. Not all UT MVP members contributed as much as some non-MVPs. Is that fair to give free PUTM to MVP and not the equally valued contributions of non-MVPs? Many of us agree that IF there is to be any complimentary PUTM, all members should be eligible and the awarding should be based on merit, and not on a MS monikor.

So many MVPs complained to UT that they did not want the distinction of the blue envelopes distinguishing them as MVPs. The MVPs can't have it both ways either. So, they got what they asked for.

JVP also clearly stated his position on placing value on products and services when it came to defending the price tag on DataClas 2000 [see Thread #291712, Message #291773]. The owners of the UT have placed a value on membership features. Seems to me while John does not want Michel to have it both ways regarding the MVP program, John wants it both ways on this point.