MICHAEL wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I don't know how many times I've seen those who
> claim to know WTF they are talking about, say[/color]

Adding blogs to your post does NOT help your augument.
[color=blue]
> that it is not "legal" or allowed by Microsoft
> for folks using a Vista beta to be able to purchase
> an Upgrade version of Vista and install it on top of
> their Vista beta. Numerous posters were told they would
> have to buy the full version. Wrong.
>
> [url]http://windoaawdsvdaaistaadfadbasddlog.com/blogs/wiasdfdndasdowasdsista/archive/2007/04/24/wire.aspx[/url][/color]

--
[url]http://www.bootdisk.com/[/url]

Michael

Everyone was using the best information they had at the time. They weren't
lying at the time and there's no reason for anyone to feel bad about it?

This happens often on newsgroups, you will tell someone that they need to
replace xyz hardware/software because abc company has said that it will not
be supported on xxx operating system. 2 months later you hear that xyz will
be supported by abc company on xxx operating system. But in the interim,
many people have tossed xyz and purchased a newer version. Companies change
policies all the time.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:%23tu8uJ5hHHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
>
> Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:[color=green]
>> Michael
>>
>> Don't be too critical with people who previously posted that information.
>> Their comments were based on how Microsoft had handled previous operating
>> system beta and CPP programs.
>>
>> The information that Nick posted on the blog is a result of 'very' recent
>> decisions by Microsoft due to the feedback they have been receiving in
>> recent months from beta testers and CPP participants.
>>
>> The really good thing, just like with the early licensing issues, is that
>> it shows that they are listening. :)[/color]
>
> Ronnie,
>
> I agree with your last sentence. Unless, this decision
> had already been decided upon awhile back, but no one decided
> to let anyone know. That's just wrong.
>
> Two things:
> Those users who were told no you can't do
> that. Many of them probably went out and bought
> the full version. That's not right.
>
> There were a few users who stated that they had indeed
> used an upgrade version on their Vista beta and were
> called out for it... comments about their character and
> honesty.
>
> Instead of stating things as absolutes, there may be times
> when saying "I'm/we're not sure" is better.
> Microsoft actually communicating important information
> in a timely manner would be the best thing. I certainly
> won't hold my breath.
>
> What really pisses me off, I lied, too. I told a friend
> and one user in this forum that they had to buy the full
> version because that is what I had read in this forum-
> that was the "allowed" way to migrate to Vista RTM.
> Silly me for being so ignorant.
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Michael[/color]

> This happens often on newsgroups, you will tell someone that they need to[color=blue]
> replace xyz hardware/software because abc company has said that it will
> not be supported on xxx operating system.[/color]

Could you provide the original source of which MS made the statement that
such upgrade is not allowed? If so, your "argument" is valid, otherwise,
it's a nonsense.

And do you know what is disclaimer if the information is unconfirmed?




"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <rv@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:%23wIhMg6hHHA.4904@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Michael
>
> Everyone was using the best information they had at the time. They weren't
> lying at the time and there's no reason for anyone to feel bad about it?
>
> This happens often on newsgroups, you will tell someone that they need to
> replace xyz hardware/software because abc company has said that it will
> not be supported on xxx operating system. 2 months later you hear that xyz
> will be supported by abc company on xxx operating system. But in the
> interim, many people have tossed xyz and purchased a newer version.
> Companies change policies all the time.
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23tu8uJ5hHHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>>
>> Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Don't be too critical with people who previously posted that
>>> information. Their comments were based on how Microsoft had handled
>>> previous operating system beta and CPP programs.
>>>
>>> The information that Nick posted on the blog is a result of 'very'
>>> recent decisions by Microsoft due to the feedback they have been
>>> receiving in recent months from beta testers and CPP participants.
>>>
>>> The really good thing, just like with the early licensing issues, is
>>> that it shows that they are listening. :)[/color]
>>
>> Ronnie,
>>
>> I agree with your last sentence. Unless, this decision
>> had already been decided upon awhile back, but no one decided
>> to let anyone know. That's just wrong.
>>
>> Two things:
>> Those users who were told no you can't do
>> that. Many of them probably went out and bought
>> the full version. That's not right.
>>
>> There were a few users who stated that they had indeed
>> used an upgrade version on their Vista beta and were
>> called out for it... comments about their character and
>> honesty.
>>
>> Instead of stating things as absolutes, there may be times
>> when saying "I'm/we're not sure" is better.
>> Microsoft actually communicating important information
>> in a timely manner would be the best thing. I certainly
>> won't hold my breath.
>>
>> What really pisses me off, I lied, too. I told a friend
>> and one user in this forum that they had to buy the full
>> version because that is what I had read in this forum-
>> that was the "allowed" way to migrate to Vista RTM.
>> Silly me for being so ignorant.
>>
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> Michael[/color]
>[/color]

Plato wrote:[color=blue]
> MICHAEL wrote:[color=green]
>> I don't know how many times I've seen those who
>> claim to know WTF they are talking about, say[/color]
>
> Adding blogs to your post does NOT help your augument.[/color]


WTF are you talking about? The blog is the official
Vista blog. The post was written by Nick White who is
a Product Manager at Microsoft working on the Windows Vista
launch team. Jim Allchin, Co-President, Platform and Services Division
posts there, too.
[url]http://windowsvistablog.com/tags/Jim+Allchin/default.aspx[/url]

[url]http://windowsvistablog.com/about.aspx[/url]
The Windows Vista Team Blog is a collaboration among various employees of Microsoft's Windows
division. It's our aim to take you behind the scenes of the Windows Vista development process,
give you a sense of who we are and the decisions and challenges we face daily, and hopefully
show you something new once in awhile, too.

Topics we cover include delving into the development process, points of view from our partners,
customers and people on the Windows Vista team at Microsoft, and context or "back story" that
explains why the product is the way it is today, and how it got to be that way.

It's all in an effort to provide you with the information you need to be a more informed
Windows Vista user.

We hope that the insight and analysis provided via this blog will spark interesting and useful
conversations for everyone who visits. We expect some of the commentary the blog receives to
be controversial or even critical in nature, but that's part and parcel of the blogoshpere.
Nevertheless, you can rest assured that your feedback is reviewed by and relayed to the Windows
Vista product team on a regular basis.

Drop us an email and let us know what you think.

© Copyright 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> that it is not "legal" or allowed by Microsoft
>> for folks using a Vista beta to be able to purchase
>> an Upgrade version of Vista and install it on top of
>> their Vista beta. Numerous posters were told they would
>> have to buy the full version. Wrong.
>>
>> [url]http://windoaawdsvdaaistaadfadbasddlog.com/blogs/wiasdfdndasdowasdsista/archive/2007/04/24/wire.aspx[/url][/color]
>[/color]

Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> Michael
>
> Everyone was using the best information they had at the time. They
> weren't lying at the time and there's no reason for anyone to feel bad
> about it?
>
> This happens often on newsgroups, you will tell someone that they need
> to replace xyz hardware/software because abc company has said that it
> will not be supported on xxx operating system. 2 months later you hear
> that xyz will be supported by abc company on xxx operating system. But
> in the interim, many people have tossed xyz and purchased a newer
> version. Companies change policies all the time.[/color]

I'm sure there will be quite a few beta testers who find
your apologetics unacceptable. Especially, since there
were numerous debates in this forum about what the CPP beta
testers deserved. Many thought they should get Vista for
free. A lot of users were upset about it... these discussions
were held awhile back. That should have been the time, before
Vista launch, that Microsoft should have stepped up, done something,
and said it aloud. I didn't think the CPP testers were entitled to
Vista for free, but there were several saying they deserved at least
upgrade pricing. That seemed fair, to me. Nothing, not a peep...
only, no you can not do that. Almost *three months* after Vista
launch are we told the truth. Pitiful.

There were a lot of excited beta testers who were ready to get Vista
as soon as it was released. These are the type of users who would
spread the "gospel" of Vista and Microsoft, and run out and buy it
as soon as they could. Now, many of them will be the ones who got
shafted because they bought the full priced version. All because
Microsoft couldn't make up their fukkin mind. That's the "reward"
they got for being part of "Vista's unprecedented beta testing group".
This "new policy" more than likely won't benefit too many, I seriously
doubt that many are still using the betas. The excited beta testers
who liked it, already bought it. That seems like the *real* reason for
just announcing the "new policy". Make it seem like they've done a good
thing... in reality they've done nothing but the same old crap they
always do. Pathetic.



-Michael

Michael;
"I lied, too"
No, you did not lie.
To lie two things have to be true:
1. The information give has to be false.
2. More importantly, you have to know the information you give is
false.
If you believed your information to be true and it is later found
false, you may be misinformed, but that does not make you a liar.

One last point, blogs, even the ones on microsoft.com are not official
and have been wrong in the past.
Blogs are one persons writings and unofficial where the official
website undergoes more scrutiny and proofing before publication.
Blogs have little or no proofing.
That is not to say the blogs are unreliable, just that if there is a
conflict, the website is usually correct where the blogger may have
been misinformed.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:%23tu8uJ5hHHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Ronnie,
>
> I agree with your last sentence. Unless, this decision
> had already been decided upon awhile back, but no one decided
> to let anyone know. That's just wrong.
>
> Two things:
> Those users who were told no you can't do
> that. Many of them probably went out and bought
> the full version. That's not right.
>
> There were a few users who stated that they had indeed
> used an upgrade version on their Vista beta and were
> called out for it... comments about their character and
> honesty.
>
> Instead of stating things as absolutes, there may be times
> when saying "I'm/we're not sure" is better.
> Microsoft actually communicating important information
> in a timely manner would be the best thing. I certainly
> won't hold my breath.
>
> What really pisses me off, I lied, too. I told a friend
> and one user in this forum that they had to buy the full
> version because that is what I had read in this forum-
> that was the "allowed" way to migrate to Vista RTM.
> Silly me for being so ignorant.
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Michael[/color]

Nick White is a Vista product manager-
if he doesn't have the correct facts, then
who in hades at Microsoft does?

Is this "official" enough?

[url]http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/preview.mspx[/url]


-Michael

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> Michael;
> "I lied, too"
> No, you did not lie.
> To lie two things have to be true:
> 1. The information give has to be false.
> 2. More importantly, you have to know the information you give is false.
> If you believed your information to be true and it is later found false,
> you may be misinformed, but that does not make you a liar.
>
> One last point, blogs, even the ones on microsoft.com are not official
> and have been wrong in the past.
> Blogs are one persons writings and unofficial where the official website
> undergoes more scrutiny and proofing before publication.
> Blogs have little or no proofing.
> That is not to say the blogs are unreliable, just that if there is a
> conflict, the website is usually correct where the blogger may have been
> misinformed.
>[/color]

That is an official site.
As I said before, Blogs by their nature are unofficial.
Anything Microsoft wants to announce officially may be in a blog but
if Microsoft want to get the word our officially, it will be on the
website as well.

"Nick White is a Vista product manager"
Not really relevant since everyone can make a mistake.
Since blogs are not normally proofed, errors can and do happen.

BTW, Product Manager is not always what it sounds like.
It is normal for their to be many members on a development team at
Microsoft with all having the title of Product Manager.

Soon I will install one of the Vista Betas and see what happens when I
install Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:uMv9DF7hHHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Nick White is a Vista product manager-
> if he doesn't have the correct facts, then
> who in hades at Microsoft does?
>
> Is this "official" enough?
>
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/preview.mspx[/url]
>
>
> -Michael[/color]

Here's one for you-

The Vista beta keys were allowed to
be activated on 10 different computers,
and each beta tester could actually request
two different keys, or was it three?
If a user had actually done that, and installed
Vista beta on all those computers or even just a
few (even on computers that didn't have a prior Windows OS,
just the free Vista beta), well, it seems that all
those computers could be upgraded with the upgrade version.



-Michael


Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> That is an official site.
> As I said before, Blogs by their nature are unofficial.
> Anything Microsoft wants to announce officially may be in a blog but if
> Microsoft want to get the word our officially, it will be on the website
> as well.
>
> "Nick White is a Vista product manager"
> Not really relevant since everyone can make a mistake.
> Since blogs are not normally proofed, errors can and do happen.
>
> BTW, Product Manager is not always what it sounds like.
> It is normal for their to be many members on a development team at
> Microsoft with all having the title of Product Manager.
>
> Soon I will install one of the Vista Betas and see what happens when I
> install Windows Vista Ultimate upgrade.
>[/color]

It sounds like you are actually talking about the Customer Preview
Program participants and not the Technical Beta testers.

I was in the Vista Technical Beta and had far more than two keys.
Right now Vista RC-2 Ultimate is installing using a one of those keys
that has previously never been used.

Unfortunately I do not have the time or resources to test on about 10
computers with the same Beta license.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:ebadFg7hHHA.2028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Here's one for you-
>
> The Vista beta keys were allowed to
> be activated on 10 different computers,
> and each beta tester could actually request
> two different keys, or was it three?
> If a user had actually done that, and installed
> Vista beta on all those computers or even just a
> few (even on computers that didn't have a prior Windows OS,
> just the free Vista beta), well, it seems that all
> those computers could be upgraded with the upgrade version.
>
>
>
> -Michael[/color]

Words fail to convey my amazement with "Jupiter's" response. Then again,
Mr. Jones is a volunteer if I understand the MVP designation. I think it's
time Microsoft got back to supporting it's products, in newsgroups, with
paid employees who don't make stuff* up (*you know the word I mean). In
this case it's cost people money. I never would have bought the "full"
version of Vista on release day.

The equivocation in all methods and means still boils down to the FACT that
I, and I'm sure, many others, bought the FULL version of Vista (I had to do
the anytime upgrade because the store didn't have Ultimate Full) having read
the constant barrage of messages by MVP's that nothing else was even
possible. It is true that Microsoft pulled a good one in putting this
information on this web site at this late date. This late-date churn is
the result of decisions and information that should have been planned from
day 1, not something to be told 2-3 months later... Going back to square
one, I'd sure like to know why the old fashioned validation method was
ditched - provide an XP disc or whatever disc or no install of an upgrade
version. Or is this technically impossible with Vista on DVD and XP on CD?
I wouldn't think so since a DVD deck can read either but there has to be a
great reason to bolster the "apparent" (read: definite) attitude that
Microsoft users are all bad people.

Note that the bottom of the page has a link "find answers to frequently
asked questions on the Windows Vista blog." Sounds pretty official to me.
I note a certain bit of word-for-word similiarity between the "unofficial
blog" and the Microsoft.com...windowsvista/preview site.

Bill Halvorsen


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:uMv9DF7hHHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Nick White is a Vista product manager-
> if he doesn't have the correct facts, then
> who in hades at Microsoft does?
>
> Is this "official" enough?
>
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/preview.mspx[/url]
>
>
> -Michael
>
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=green]
>> Michael;
>> "I lied, too"
>> No, you did not lie.
>> To lie two things have to be true:
>> 1. The information give has to be false.
>> 2. More importantly, you have to know the information you give is false.
>> If you believed your information to be true and it is later found false,
>> you may be misinformed, but that does not make you a liar.
>>
>> One last point, blogs, even the ones on microsoft.com are not official
>> and have been wrong in the past.
>> Blogs are one persons writings and unofficial where the official website
>> undergoes more scrutiny and proofing before publication.
>> Blogs have little or no proofing.
>> That is not to say the blogs are unreliable, just that if there is a
>> conflict, the website is usually correct where the blogger may have been
>> misinformed.
>>[/color][/color]

Amazed at what?
The fact blogs are not necessarily official?

I did not make up anything.
If you assume I did, you fall into the same trap that befalls many who
make assumptions.

The word for word similarity means little other than the source was
the same or close.
The fact it is on the website is the authority, the blog is a source
of information with a link to the authority for obvious reasons.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Non-entity" <notavalidaddress@nonentitynohow.net> wrote in message
news:utA%23Gv7hHHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Words fail to convey my amazement with "Jupiter's" response. Then
> again, Mr. Jones is a volunteer if I understand the MVP designation.
> I think it's time Microsoft got back to supporting it's products, in
> newsgroups, with paid employees who don't make stuff* up (*you know
> the word I mean). In this case it's cost people money. I never
> would have bought the "full" version of Vista on release day.
>
> The equivocation in all methods and means still boils down to the
> FACT that I, and I'm sure, many others, bought the FULL version of
> Vista (I had to do the anytime upgrade because the store didn't have
> Ultimate Full) having read the constant barrage of messages by MVP's
> that nothing else was even possible. It is true that Microsoft
> pulled a good one in putting this information on this web site at
> this late date. This late-date churn is the result of decisions
> and information that should have been planned from day 1, not
> something to be told 2-3 months later... Going back to square one,
> I'd sure like to know why the old fashioned validation method was
> ditched - provide an XP disc or whatever disc or no install of an
> upgrade version. Or is this technically impossible with Vista on
> DVD and XP on CD? I wouldn't think so since a DVD deck can read
> either but there has to be a great reason to bolster the "apparent"
> (read: definite) attitude that Microsoft users are all bad people.
>
> Note that the bottom of the page has a link "find answers to
> frequently asked questions on the Windows Vista blog." Sounds
> pretty official to me. I note a certain bit of word-for-word
> similiarity between the "unofficial blog" and the
> Microsoft.com...windowsvista/preview site.
>
> Bill Halvorsen
>
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:uMv9DF7hHHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Nick White is a Vista product manager-
>> if he doesn't have the correct facts, then
>> who in hades at Microsoft does?
>>
>> Is this "official" enough?
>>
>> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/preview.mspx[/url]
>>
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Michael;
>>> "I lied, too"
>>> No, you did not lie.
>>> To lie two things have to be true:
>>> 1. The information give has to be false.
>>> 2. More importantly, you have to know the information you give is
>>> false.
>>> If you believed your information to be true and it is later found
>>> false, you may be misinformed, but that does not make you a liar.
>>>
>>> One last point, blogs, even the ones on microsoft.com are not
>>> official and have been wrong in the past.
>>> Blogs are one persons writings and unofficial where the official
>>> website undergoes more scrutiny and proofing before publication.
>>> Blogs have little or no proofing.
>>> That is not to say the blogs are unreliable, just that if there is
>>> a conflict, the website is usually correct where the blogger may
>>> have been misinformed.
>>>[/color][/color]
>
>[/color]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:e8bjZK8hHHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Amazed at what?
> The fact blogs are not necessarily official?[/color]

No. that YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not Microsoft
employees.[color=blue]
>
> I did not make up anything.
> If you assume I did, you fall into the same trap that befalls many who
> make assumptions.[/color]

You fell into the trap. I didn't have the desire to go through it
word-for-word but the blog and website, except for appearance, ARE "on the
same page" as they say. Perhaps it is even word-for-word. I'm afraid that
from what I can glean from reading the blog, then going to the website, the
blog IS - much as you may designate it "unofficial" - functioning as
something official.
[color=blue]
>
> The word for word similarity means little other than the source was the
> same or close.
> The fact it is on the website is the authority, the blog is a source of
> information with a link to the authority for obvious reasons.[/color]

Read both. They say the same thing. The blog doesn't, to my recollection,
say it "may" be correct; it puts the information out there just as the MS
site does.

Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money as well.
[color=blue]
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>
>
> "Non-entity" <notavalidaddress@nonentitynohow.net> wrote in message
> news:utA%23Gv7hHHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Words fail to convey my amazement with "Jupiter's" response. Then again,
>> Mr. Jones is a volunteer if I understand the MVP designation. I think
>> it's time Microsoft got back to supporting it's products, in newsgroups,
>> with paid employees who don't make stuff* up (*you know the word I mean).
>> In this case it's cost people money. I never would have bought the
>> "full" version of Vista on release day.
>>
>> The equivocation in all methods and means still boils down to the FACT
>> that I, and I'm sure, many others, bought the FULL version of Vista (I
>> had to do the anytime upgrade because the store didn't have Ultimate
>> Full) having read the constant barrage of messages by MVP's that nothing
>> else was even possible. It is true that Microsoft pulled a good one in
>> putting this information on this web site at this late date. This
>> late-date churn is the result of decisions and information that should
>> have been planned from day 1, not something to be told 2-3 months
>> later... Going back to square one, I'd sure like to know why the old
>> fashioned validation method was ditched - provide an XP disc or whatever
>> disc or no install of an upgrade version. Or is this technically
>> impossible with Vista on DVD and XP on CD? I wouldn't think so since a
>> DVD deck can read either but there has to be a great reason to bolster
>> the "apparent" (read: definite) attitude that Microsoft users are all bad
>> people.
>>
>> Note that the bottom of the page has a link "find answers to frequently
>> asked questions on the Windows Vista blog." Sounds pretty official to
>> me. I note a certain bit of word-for-word similiarity between the
>> "unofficial blog" and the Microsoft.com...windowsvista/preview site.
>>
>> Bill Halvorsen
>>
>>
>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMv9DF7hHHA.4076@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Nick White is a Vista product manager-
>>> if he doesn't have the correct facts, then
>>> who in hades at Microsoft does?
>>>
>>> Is this "official" enough?
>>>
>>> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/preview.mspx[/url]
>>>
>>>
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>> Michael;
>>>> "I lied, too"
>>>> No, you did not lie.
>>>> To lie two things have to be true:
>>>> 1. The information give has to be false.
>>>> 2. More importantly, you have to know the information you give is
>>>> false.
>>>> If you believed your information to be true and it is later found
>>>> false, you may be misinformed, but that does not make you a liar.
>>>>
>>>> One last point, blogs, even the ones on microsoft.com are not official
>>>> and have been wrong in the past.
>>>> Blogs are one persons writings and unofficial where the official
>>>> website undergoes more scrutiny and proofing before publication.
>>>> Blogs have little or no proofing.
>>>> That is not to say the blogs are unreliable, just that if there is a
>>>> conflict, the website is usually correct where the blogger may have
>>>> been misinformed.
>>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

"YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not Microsoft
employees"
That amazes you?
That is a simple fact.
MVPs do NOT represent Microsoft and what we say is not in itself
official since we are not an official source.
Though most MVPs have good sources within Microsoft.

I never suggested this blog page and website were not "on the same
page".
In this case they are, but that does not mean blogs are official.
Blogs are not official and that is why anything important on a blog
can be referenced to the website.
If it can not be referenced to the website, then it can not be assumed
it represents Microsoft policy.
I am referring to blogs on the Microsoft site in general, not just
this blog.

"Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money as
well."
If that is what you believe, hopefully you have contacted Microsoft
appropriately.
Since these are peer to peer support newsgroups, there is no
requirement or expectation that Microsoft get your suggestion if this
newsgroup is the only place you post your suggestion.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Non-entity" <notavalidaddress@nonentitynohow.net> wrote in message
news:OKikgW8hHHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
> news:e8bjZK8hHHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Amazed at what?
>> The fact blogs are not necessarily official?[/color]
>
> No. that YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not
> Microsoft employees.[color=green]
>>
>> I did not make up anything.
>> If you assume I did, you fall into the same trap that befalls many
>> who make assumptions.[/color]
>
> You fell into the trap. I didn't have the desire to go through it
> word-for-word but the blog and website, except for appearance, ARE
> "on the same page" as they say. Perhaps it is even word-for-word.
> I'm afraid that from what I can glean from reading the blog, then
> going to the website, the blog IS - much as you may designate it
> "unofficial" - functioning as something official.
>[color=green]
>>
>> The word for word similarity means little other than the source was
>> the same or close.
>> The fact it is on the website is the authority, the blog is a
>> source of information with a link to the authority for obvious
>> reasons.[/color]
>
> Read both. They say the same thing. The blog doesn't, to my
> recollection, say it "may" be correct; it puts the information out
> there just as the MS site does.
>
> Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money
> as well.
>[color=green]
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
>> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url][/color][/color]

> MVPs do NOT represent Microsoft and what we say is not in itself official[color=blue]
> since we are not an official source.[/color]

Except they like to mislead people by emphasizing they are "Microsoft MVP"
or "Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals" because regular people won't know
what that actually means.

When things went wrong, they will change tone and then said - we are
volunteers and ....

Again, a few bad rats ruined the supposed-to-be-good program. But if they
cancelled the program and use real support, BG won't be the richest man in
the world.

Since some people here enjoy to play rude games, I'll play with you for a
few rounds.


But up to this point,
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:exXxfi8hHHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not Microsoft
> employees"
> That amazes you?
> That is a simple fact.
> MVPs do NOT represent Microsoft and what we say is not in itself official
> since we are not an official source.
> Though most MVPs have good sources within Microsoft.
>
> I never suggested this blog page and website were not "on the same page".
> In this case they are, but that does not mean blogs are official.
> Blogs are not official and that is why anything important on a blog can be
> referenced to the website.
> If it can not be referenced to the website, then it can not be assumed it
> represents Microsoft policy.
> I am referring to blogs on the Microsoft site in general, not just this
> blog.
>
> "Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money as
> well."
> If that is what you believe, hopefully you have contacted Microsoft
> appropriately.
> Since these are peer to peer support newsgroups, there is no requirement
> or expectation that Microsoft get your suggestion if this newsgroup is the
> only place you post your suggestion.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>
>
> "Non-entity" <notavalidaddress@nonentitynohow.net> wrote in message
> news:OKikgW8hHHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e8bjZK8hHHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Amazed at what?
>>> The fact blogs are not necessarily official?[/color]
>>
>> No. that YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not
>> Microsoft employees.[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> I did not make up anything.
>>> If you assume I did, you fall into the same trap that befalls many who
>>> make assumptions.[/color]
>>
>> You fell into the trap. I didn't have the desire to go through it
>> word-for-word but the blog and website, except for appearance, ARE "on
>> the same page" as they say. Perhaps it is even word-for-word. I'm afraid
>> that from what I can glean from reading the blog, then going to the
>> website, the blog IS - much as you may designate it "unofficial" -
>> functioning as something official.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> The word for word similarity means little other than the source was the
>>> same or close.
>>> The fact it is on the website is the authority, the blog is a source of
>>> information with a link to the authority for obvious reasons.[/color]
>>
>> Read both. They say the same thing. The blog doesn't, to my
>> recollection, say it "may" be correct; it puts the information out there
>> just as the MS site does.
>>
>> Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money as
>> well.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>>> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
>>> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url][/color][/color]
>[/color]