Craig;

It really was not necessary for you to have answered for Michel, as he had already responded for himself.

I might take issue with your statement, “Michel's job is only to use what the advertiser provides”. IMO it does not look professional to advertise something that is not up to date. It may not reflect upon the UT or Michel, but it does standout to some people. Michel was kind enough to say he would contact VMP. He did not have to. I see nothing wrong with an observation being related and Michel have the folks at VMP update their ad.

Perhaps you had better tell Michel what he should do. Then advise VMP what they should do. I agree the advertiser should keep such things up to date but as a community it is nice to help each other.

Now as for your quoted statement above, that is reminiscent of the advertising desk of radio and television stations, and other media. Do not concern yourself with content, etc. You have no responsibility except to show what the advertiser has to present and take payment for your service.

Tom



>It should be the responsibility of the adverister to keep their ad up to date. Michel's job is only to use what the advertiser provides.
>
>
>>>>Concerning the Visual MaxFrame 2003 advertisement on the UT home page, the latest version is 2004. That is alright - the year is young! :)
>>>
>>>They will probably release a 2004 version soon I guess. You may contact Vision Data Solutions for more info.
>>
>>My point is simple: Version 2004 was released several months ago and in fact bug fixes have been released since January. 2003 is not the latest version.
>>
>>Dates and versions that are obsolete can be of concern to some people. One example is that over the weekend I purchased some new software. It states the URL to register the software on line. This URL takes you to a page that gives you a form that proudly states a number of the product two versions ago.
>>
>>I think we know that being current on the Internet with dates and the like can be a problem. Some things just never change.