You may be right, or you may be wrong, I could not care less. But what is the purpose of your arguing????? I see no other purpose than convincing yourself that you are right, or in other words a egotrip. Or have someone else written that before?
Boring and irritating are also suitable words. So, in an attempt not to be irritated, I will let this thread live it's own life from now on, I will ignore it.

>>
>However I strongly feel that you are wasting too much time banging your head against the wall. As I wrote in an earlier reply, I think it was to you, we must all respect the MS$ team and their reduced freedom to speak and comment.
>>
>
>And the context of the comment is this: people should not read anything into a lack of response from MS. But - when MS responds - then it becomes fair game. What JK said - about a feature not getting due to budgetary reasons is flat out wrong - and I commented on and drew attention to that. I have done it with Ken - so JK received equal treatment. IMO - the record should be accurate - that is what I do.
>
>>
>My honest opinion is that they are doing a very good work in balancing how much to say and how much NOT to say. Please excuse me for shouting <g>. I think that if they had not said so much, we would not have asked so much for more info, and this whole thread had not been started. I also seems to remember that it actually was Ken Levy who started this thread as a positive message to everyone, but I am too lazy to check, so I may be wrong. Now I think you make this thread all negative.
>>
>
>If I were in charge of the Fox Team - I would mandate that no public comments regarding future strategy are made. Clearly, off the cuff comments get made here. It is clear that comments are not vetted. It actually works the opposite of what you think. The more they say - the more one has to go down the road of clarification. For example, if a post is made that is confusing, the MS author is pretty much locked into what often happens is a never-ending cycle of emails. Ken's last go around with all the longhorn stuff is proof of that.
>
>Simply put - it is bad policy to make prouncements and conclusions based on events that are likely to change. In the past - under a different regime - this is the way stuff worked. When the time was right, MS spoke - and when they spoke - it was not premature.
>
>It is also bad policy to make a blatent mis-statement - such as the one by JK. It is absolutely important for people to understand why something may not make it in. The sad fact is - many features don't make it in because they are not cost-justified. MS having billions upon billions in the bank nothwithstanding - there are still budgets to respect. That is just good business.
>
>I am sure this will be construed as being negative. There is nothing I can do about that - and I definitely do not waste time crafting words that will be liked by all. Then again, I don't see what is objectionable here to the reasoanble person.
>
>< JVP >