The whole context of that statement was to demonstrate that reliance upon assumption is not as accurate as reliance upon observation.

Of course your comments were crossposted with my upload. Sorry about that. I did mention within that post that of course this was an ‘intuitive’ assumption and therefore could be untrue.

In all fairness, your post simply labeled me wrong and you didn’t state your assumption until challenged. Then, of course, it was clarified.

Of course I value your input and I value your productive information, but you did say I was wrong and then posted an assumption to back it up, which was wrong itself. Then Bill picked it up and he said I was wrong without even clicking on your raw data hyperlink.

I’m not saying you Shill for Adobe. But if we are going to operate from observation, let’s do so. If we are going to operate from assumptions, then I can assume just as well as you can.

By the way, I think all of us agree that the next step is to contact Investor Relations and find out the official Adobe stance on the matter. I have said that I will do this when I have time.

Of course I’ll post the raw data of the results. I, for one, am not expecting anything but a lengthy wait and then a firewall, but I could be surprised.

And

“I’m feeling, intuitively, that someone at Adobe bird-dogged you and has fed you a little bit of the story to disseminate.”

You can assume anything you want, but in this case you’re wrong. Nobody from Adobe has contacted me about your blogging. Nobody from Adobe has asked me to disseminate their side of the story.

I’m disappointed to see this turn into a discussion of my motives. I already posted a comment on an earlier post of yours in which I said that my comments are not inspired, requested, or otherwise prompted by Adobe.

I’m done with this discussion. I’ve tried to provide some productive information, but it appears that People Who Disagree with You must be Shills for Adobe.

Sarah