Actually, if you go back through the last few versions, the subseqent version being more "stable" than the last is indeed touted as a "feature".

Never gave it much thought before - but you do bring up a good point.

By the way, if you are going to insult me, at least spell my last name correctly.

Thanks...


>You are joking, right Ken?
>
>I wonder what genius at MS came up with that one - sounds like something Steve Ballmer would state in a company-wide email.
>
>The concept is as absurd as the following scenario:
>
>Developer delivers app to customer. Customer comes back to developer:
>
>Customer: “The trial balance report crashes as well as the remote check printing.”
>
>Developer: “You didn’t say you didn’t want it to crash.”
>
>Customer: “It goes without saying.”
>
>Developer: “It is not specified in your requirements. The non-crash feature will take an additional 200 hours for the trial balance report and 300 hours for remote check printing.”
>
>Customer: “Are you kidding?”
>
>Developer: “Absolutely not. We consider this a feature.”
>
>Customer: “We’ll see about that!”
>
>Developer (anticipating a problem) employs John Peterson to frustrate and confuse the customer.