Russell,

You say there is an "obvious potential for conflict of interest", where I don't see one at all. Here are some examples of conflicts of interest:

* A buyer for a company who just so happens to own a large stake in a vendor.
* A football player who makes a bet on a game he is playing in (betting on the other team)

In both these cases, the person has an *obligation* to meet. For example, the buyer is obligated by job duties to best put their employers purchasing dollars to use. However, in these examples, the person has put themselves in a position that is at odds with their obligations.

I don't see the same situation here. MVP's (or noone else, for that matter) are under no obligation to criticize MS.

FWIW, that's my take on it.

>All I can say is that people do wonder about whether the MVPs can be completely honest and objective and resist the obvious potential for conflict of interest. I am not the only one that has said that, however I haven't seen you lecturing anyone else, unless I just missed it. Basically, the potential for a conflict of interest does exist, though you seem to turn a blind eye to it. You say "the problem, however, occurs when the feeling/wonder/opinion, is given voice." You amaze me! We can have opinions, but not voice them? We can wonder, but not criticize because "it may give a bad impression about the program"? What's the goal here, George? Open and honest discussion or just to protect the MVP program? I was here to discuss, which means I have to voice my opinion. If you want to try to squelch my opinion in order not to "give a bad impression about the program", then too bad. My impression, overall, of the program is good, but I have some misgivings. If you can't handle
>that and you only want praise for the MVP program to be uttered here, then you had better wake up and smell the coffee - ain't nothing perfect and the MVP program is no exception. I didn't expect these types of comments from you!
>