Re: Update on WordPerfect reclassification: shareware!

[defenton@minet.gov.mb.ca (Dennis Fenton)]

In article <5f8ooi$39u$1@darla.visi.com>, nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) says:
>
>In article <19970228044500.XAA23498@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>Owsw <owsw@aol.com> wrote:
>>Scott Gxxxx 
>>xxx xxxxxx xxxxx 
>>Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
>   Hmmm. An anonymous poster provides 'proof' but almost no way to
>verify the claims. Anyone with a word processing program and a laser
>printer can make up a letterhead for any relatively-unknown company
>they care to mention, and after a pass thru a photocopier, who can
>tell whether it's legitimate? Sure, an address was posted for this
>company in MA, but has anyone other than the people who *lied* about
>the reclassification before (and those supporting the lie) verified
>the claim?
>
>   You were proven wrong last time by a storm of people able to
>contact Corel and determine the state of WP themselves. Now, almost
>zero information except for a mythic sheet of paper in the hands of a
>proven liar. I'd like a lot more info first, preferably a post *by*
>the company in question (c'mon-- this is late 90s: everyone and
>their cat is on the internet, especially computer-related companies),
>etc. 
>
>Nathan Mates
>--
><*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
># What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
># Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
># think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein
Good point about the company perhaps. I hope you are as confident about the
truthfulness of your remarks about other people though. Are we really 
talking about a proven liar or just someone you disagree with?