John,

>You should know by now Dave that if I make an assertion - one that could be proved by observable fact, the fact will be there....

Your original post did not have a high confidence level. You begged it to be disproved, I was merely reversing the responsibility of its proof.

>What I said is a pure statement of fact.

In a negative manner.

>But that is not the point, is it? The issue has to do with what happened in the past. Whether it was an exception or not is 100% irrelevant.

It's no more irrelevant than the points you raise.

>Somebody else is going to have to confirm. Based on my recollection - 7 and 8 RTM's in the fall. I believe VS RTM'd in the fall as well. I believe 5 RTM'd in the fall as well (we wrote a book ). I believe 6 RTM'd in the last summer/fall as well.

Again, not someone else's responsibility to prove your statement true.

>No...I am just saying that when the key note comes - and nothing about 10 is said, that should be indicative of something. Conclusive??? Perhaps not. Just comparing present to history.

We'll see what is said in October.

>Glad you see it my way Dave...

*LOL* Only you could twist this around to mean that I am seeing things your way. Nice try though.