>You questioned his motives - questioning his professional integrity. I think that's off base. If you have something to say, say it. But making implications about somebody's motives because of some insider knowledge you claim to have is sleazy.
>
>>>If Ken says he likes a language or whatever for technical reasons that's good enough for me. Your SPECULATION - which seems more like ranting-as-character-assassination - seems to me pretty ill-informed.
>>
>>Hey - take a pill - I'm not "character assasinating" - you are simply over-reacting. I was asked "what possible motives might be" and I responded with what I clearly identified as speculation.

First of all - having 'motives' does not make one evil or without integrity - so I have NOT questioned his or anyone else's "professional integrity". I respect Ken and the whole VFP team, so you are simply wrong. Secondly - you keep missing the point. I was asked "what POSSIBLE motives" might there be and I responded with a POSSIBILITY - one that seems reasonable given what I've seen both publicly and privately. And what rule of etiquette, pray tell, requires that one divulge confidential sources or else not use them to form or express an opinion? That is absurd.