Oh B.S. MS funds these folks. That in and of itself is sufficient to put the entire enterprise under suspicion and they must prove that they are NOT a Microsoft front. It's like saying "Oh, we found a Sarin gas shell in Iraq, but that's not enough proof of WMD... I must have proof of huge stockpiles" and of course, if stockpiles are found then a new hurdle will be invented. It's called "building a straw man." You asked for evidence, you were given evidence. You now say evidence isn't sufficient unless new stipulations are met. Go on with your bad self.
I'm not shilling for MS, but I think you owe it to the forum to be honest in your titling of posts.
suspicious, very suspicious. I think you owe it to the forum to lay out your entire employment history, your 401K and all of your investments to prove that you don't have a vested interst in defending the Redomnd Behemoth.
(That's sarcasm - I'm not really asking you to reveal anything, just making a point about your posturing)