Bert Knabe wrote: >On Jun 5, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Eric F Crist wrote: > >> >>Hopefully this clears that whole argument up a bit. > >I don't think it was ever an argument here, I just mentioned I'd >read it somewhere. I can't find it now, but I know it's most likely >source to was either an eWeek newsletter, or one from ZDnet. I tend >to consider them fairly reliable - but I'd never heard anything like >that before, either. > >Bert Hi Bert, If it's any consolation, I saw the same piece of 'info'. But where it was located, is anybody's guess. I saw a lot of links. All the sources out there, even the so-called 'trusted' types, print factual errors from time-to-time. Goes with the territory, no big deal. brian s