1. archie's Avatar
    So SOX is the reason MS released Desktop Search? I guess you aren't just on crack, but meth and special-k too. Again, SOX has nothing to do with it.

    Have you every used Desktop Search? Bogus? Hardly. I think you need to look at:
    http://forums.imore.com/e?link=http%...token=4wIs5xLp

    It does emails, contacts, etc....all the things you say it doesn't. You don't even know what you are talking about, yet you spout out untrue statements with such authority.
    I KNOW the first version did not because there was this big upset about how it faired with Google's - at the very least people were all up in arms and complaining about their mail accounts that were through Hotmail and such services. It lacked major functionality compared to others at that time.
    01-21-2008 11:06 PM
  2. archie's Avatar
    So SOX is the reason MS released Desktop Search? I guess you aren't just on crack, but meth and special-k too. Again, SOX has nothing to do with it.
    Yup. That and they needed to compete with Google. But the reason Google released it is they saw an opportunity; with Microsoft moving so slowly, they knew they could get in favorably with the IT managers before Microsoft released Desktop Search.

    You see, Sarbanes-Oxley and other related acts were what forced IT in US companies to have control over sensitive information. IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about. Apple and Google were first. Microsoft was about last I suppose and had the worst implementation. No surprise here.

    Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search.

    And now everybody here knows how it started - this Microsoft/Google rivalry.
    01-21-2008 11:07 PM
  3. mikec#IM's Avatar
    You have misunderstood the context. I thought putting the word software in quotes would communicate what I meant to you but I obviously misjudged your level of comprehension. I said there were only board members from "software" companies as opposed to "hardware" companies. I didn't say they were ALL from software companies.
    The context was that you were arguing that Apple is a software company.
    Therefore, the intepretation is quite accurate. Again, not sure why you have a problem with the moniker. Apple is doing very well, regardless of category.

    I can only read what you write. If you want to write more clearly, please feel free to do so.

    In the meantime, please elaborate on how the gov't, through SOX, forced MS to create and release WDS.

    Oh, and just in case you need another example of a company adding a feature and not charging for it:

    http://kbserver.netgear.com/release_notes/d102798.asp

    Looks like WPA-PSK was added....hmmm...don't seem to see a charge for it. You better call the SEC!

    Why is it so had for you to see that it's all about the chance to make $$$ and do some internal accounting acrobatics? Give Apple corporate finance for being creative, as opposed to saying they are forced to to go by the gov't.
    01-22-2008 09:55 AM
  4. mikec#IM's Avatar
    I KNOW the first version did not because there was this big upset about how it faired with Google's - at the very least people were all up in arms and complaining about their mail accounts that were through Hotmail and such services. It lacked major functionality compared to others at that time.
    You KNOW a lot fo things, but you end up being shown to be wrong, again, and again and again and again.

    What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products.

    But the point is moot. It's not what WDS was, it is about what WDS is NOW. You can download it for XP. If it a new, free, and provides a significantly different feature.

    You can try to obfuscate, but there's stil egg on your face and everybody sees it.
    01-22-2008 10:03 AM
  5. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Yup. That and they needed to compete with Google. But the reason Google released it is they saw an opportunity; with Microsoft moving so slowly, they knew they could get in favorably with the IT managers before Microsoft released Desktop Search.

    You see, Sarbanes-Oxley and other related acts were what forced IT in US companies to have control over sensitive information. IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about. Apple and Google were first. Microsoft was about last I suppose and had the worst implementation. No surprise here.

    Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search.

    And now everybody here knows how it started - this Microsoft/Google rivalry.
    Oh, that little thing about having to compete with Google. How could we forget that. Maybe that was the only reason (actually, not maybe - it is!)

    WTF? Why the SOX obsession? I know you don't get it. It's not about IT, it's aboout the public corporation having controls.

    "IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about". This statement is so whacked, I'm pretty sure you have become unhinged. It not only is false, but it defies logic. Wow, wow, wow.

    Seeing you have never used WDS, as evidenced by your lack of understanding, I would say you have not idea if it is the worst. (It is actually quite good).

    "Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search."
    Thanks for repeating it. At least you are consistent on this one issue. I could say more, but the wrongness of your words speak for themself.

    Thanks for telling everyone what they already knew - a MS/Google competition. Wow, geez, we had no idea....
    01-22-2008 10:16 AM
  6. cmaier's Avatar
    Yup. That and they needed to compete with Google. But the reason Google released it is they saw an opportunity; with Microsoft moving so slowly, they knew they could get in favorably with the IT managers before Microsoft released Desktop Search.

    You see, Sarbanes-Oxley and other related acts were what forced IT in US companies to have control over sensitive information. IT needed to have a standard method of controlling employees searching and downloading so this indexing came about. Apple and Google were first. Microsoft was about last I suppose and had the worst implementation. No surprise here.

    Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search.

    And now everybody here knows how it started - this Microsoft/Google rivalry.
    SOX requires no such thing. Furthermore, having worked at large public companies subject to SOX, I've never seen one that actually permitted their employees to use WDS (or google desktop search, for that matter).

    SOX requires that those signing financial statements be liable for thair accuracy, among other things. As part of this, they are liable for the processes which generate this information. This has led to a change in IT processes, for sure. However, there's nothing in SOX about "controlling" employees searching.
    01-22-2008 10:18 AM
  7. mikec#IM's Avatar
    SOX requires no such thing. Furthermore, having worked at large public companies subject to SOX, I've never seen one that actually permitted their employees to use WDS (or google desktop search, for that matter).

    SOX requires that those signing financial statements be liable for thair accuracy, among other things. As part of this, they are liable for the processes which generate this information. This has led to a change in IT processes, for sure. However, there's nothing in SOX about "controlling" employees searching.
    I've seen WDS using at all types of companies...basically it comes down to policy.

    Your comment on SOX is abolutely correct. However, in "archizarro" world (archie+bizarro), SOX forces companies to do many things, including mandating the color, smell and taste of products. I hear in that world, SOX is also repsonsible for birth defects, body odor, and Britney Spears' meltdown.

    Hey, at least one thing good has come of this thread...the invention of the word archizarro. (oh wait, I didn't invent it, I was forced by SOX to do it! Drat!)
    01-22-2008 10:32 AM
  8. archie's Avatar
    To address the last few posts...

    • I see no reason to elaborate any further on Sarbanes-Oxley. You asked me to elaborate the first time and I obliged - answering with more than enough detail. You asking a second time is just harassment. I do not appreciate your casual discounting of my comments as if I have no idea what I am talking about. It is apparent to me that it is you who have misspoken and are simply trying to redirect this at me.


    • You also asked me to explain Remote Disc a second time (again disregarding my previous statements):
      I specifically addressed you in post #81 by saying "Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot."


    • Your other hardware upgrade that you found from NetGear, WPA-PSK, is merely an added security feature. This is not a substantial added capability.


    • In regards to your question:
      "What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products."
      My response is that I was talking about the "first" version. You are apparently talking about version 3.01. And the point is not moot since you brought it up and want to continue arguing it.


    • I do use Microsoft Desktop Search on a daily basis about every 3 or 4 months for 3 weeks straight - when contracting onsite for a medical company.


    • To cmair who says SOX requires no such thing, I ask that you do a search yourself since you... and mikec, will not be believing me. All you have to do is type "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "IT" into a Google field and you will see.


    • And I didn't say SOX requires "'controlling' employees" (try reading it again). I said they need to have control of data. The data needs to be indexed as required by Sarbanes-Oxley.


    So, I'll say it again - THIS IS WHY MICROSOFT HAD TO RELEASE MICROSOFT DESKTOP SEARCH. They were "required" to provide the tools to give this access.

    I still think it's ironic (and hilarious) that this is the first example that mikec thought that he found to disprove my statements about Sarbanes-Oxley itself.
    01-22-2008 02:19 PM
  9. cmaier's Avatar
    To address the last few posts...

    • I see no reason to elaborate any further on Sarbanes-Oxley. You asked me to elaborate the first time and I obliged - answering with more than enough detail. You asking a second time is just harassment. I do not appreciate your casual discounting of my comments as if I have no idea what I am talking about. It is apparent to me that it is you who have misspoken and are simply trying to redirect this at me.


    • You also asked me to explain Remote Disc a second time (again disregarding my previous statements):
      I specifically addressed you in post #81 by saying "Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot."


    • Your other hardware upgrade that you found from NetGear, WPA-PSK, is merely an added security feature. This is not a substantial added capability.


    • In regards to your question:
      "What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products."
      My response is that I was talking about the "first" version. You are apparently talking about version 3.01. And the point is not moot since you brought it up and want to continue arguing it.


    • I do use Microsoft Desktop Search on a daily basis about every 3 or 4 months for 3 weeks straight - when contracting onsite for a medical company.


    • To cmair who says SOX requires no such thing, I ask that you do a search yourself since you... and mikec, will not be believing me. All you have to do is type "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "IT" into a Google field and you will see.


    • And I didn't say SOX requires "'controlling' employees" (try reading it again). I said they need to have control of data. The data needs to be indexed as required by Sarbanes-Oxley.


    So, I'll say it again - THIS IS WHY MICROSOFT HAD TO RELEASE MICROSOFT DESKTOP SEARCH. They were "required" to provide the tools to give this access.

    I still think it's ironic (and hilarious) that this is the first example that mikec thought that he found to disprove my statements about Sarbanes-Oxley itself.
    Dude -

    SOX does NOT require "indexing" of data. It requires management to report on controls on processes and data which are used for FINANCIAL reporting. The fact that some IT departments used this as an opportunity to get their budgets inflated notwithstanding, it certainly does not require indexing things (beyond the implication that data that is relied on in generating financial reports should be reliable and the methods used to insure its reliability need to be reported).
    01-22-2008 02:34 PM
  10. archie's Avatar
    Here are a few links that I found that perfectly illustrate what I am saying.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search
    read 4th paragraph down

    http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index....search=dangers
    read 4th paragraph up

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search/Micr...esktop-Search/

    I'm done.
    01-22-2008 02:57 PM
  11. mikec#IM's Avatar
    To address the last few posts...

    • I see no reason to elaborate any further on Sarbanes-Oxley. You asked me to elaborate the first time and I obliged - answering with more than enough detail. You asking a second time is just harassment. I do not appreciate your casual discounting of my comments as if I have no idea what I am talking about. It is apparent to me that it is you who have misspoken and are simply trying to redirect this at me.


    • You also asked me to explain Remote Disc a second time (again disregarding my previous statements):
      I specifically addressed you in post #81 by saying "Remote Disc also allows you to use these remote discs as Start-up drives and NetBoot."


    • Your other hardware upgrade that you found from NetGear, WPA-PSK, is merely an added security feature. This is not a substantial added capability.


    • In regards to your question:
      "What version are you talking about when you say "first" The product has been through a few incarnations and fundamental changes that make it completely different products."
      My response is that I was talking about the "first" version. You are apparently talking about version 3.01. And the point is not moot since you brought it up and want to continue arguing it.


    • I do use Microsoft Desktop Search on a daily basis about every 3 or 4 months for 3 weeks straight - when contracting onsite for a medical company.


    • To cmair who says SOX requires no such thing, I ask that you do a search yourself since you... and mikec, will not be believing me. All you have to do is type "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "IT" into a Google field and you will see.


    • And I didn't say SOX requires "'controlling' employees" (try reading it again). I said they need to have control of data. The data needs to be indexed as required by Sarbanes-Oxley.


    So, I'll say it again - THIS IS WHY MICROSOFT HAD TO RELEASE MICROSOFT DESKTOP SEARCH. They were "required" to provide the tools to give this access.

    I still think it's ironic (and hilarious) that this is the first example that mikec thought that he found to disprove my statements about Sarbanes-Oxley itself.
    You see no reason to elaborate, because you have been shown to be wrong. It's not harrassment, it's responding with fact to your absurd statements. Anyone who has read the thread can see it. Glad to see admitting defeat in spirit if not in actual words.

    Your explanation of Remote Disc as "startup and Netboot" did not adequately describe why it's special. It's the wireless part (which I had to mention).

    WPA-PSK is not a susbstantial capability? I think there is an entire security industry that would disagree on that one. Sorry, but you can't just explain it away. It goes core to your original assertions.

    WDS 3.x is the main one most people have seen/used, not 2.6. But again, they point is that SOX had nothing to do with it! If you truly used it, you would not have made the erroneous post in the first place.

    Googling something, not referencing wikipedia, does not make something fact.

    Again, the claim that SOX rulings somehow drove MS to release WDS functionality (indexing and presentation) is just an archizarro fantasy.

    It was the first example that disproves your "no one adds function for free due to SOX" drivel because it was so glaringly obvious.

    You really can't just admit you are mistaken about this whole thing.
    01-22-2008 03:25 PM
  12. cmaier's Avatar
    Here are a few links that I found that perfectly illustrate what I am saying.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search
    read 4th paragraph down

    http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index....search=dangers
    read 4th paragraph up

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search/Micr...esktop-Search/

    I'm done.
    NONE of these agree with what you said. They say that you can't allow people to have access to "sensitive" information (that is, non-public information that would allow them to trade securities at an advantage over the public).

    If anything, they say that allowing search could VIOLATE SOX, because it can lead to unauthorized people obtaining secret (non-public) information. In fact, one of the articles explicitly points out that the SOX issue is not that you must provide search, but that you must prevent UNAUTHORIZED search.
    01-22-2008 03:25 PM
  13. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Dude -

    SOX does NOT require "indexing" of data. It requires management to report on controls on processes and data which are used for FINANCIAL reporting. The fact that some IT departments used this as an opportunity to get their budgets inflated notwithstanding, it certainly does not require indexing things (beyond the implication that data that is relied on in generating financial reports should be reliable and the methods used to insure its reliability need to be reported).
    This is sounding suspicously like a true statement...hence it has no place in archizarro.
    01-22-2008 03:26 PM
  14. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Here are a few links that I found that perfectly illustrate what I am saying.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_search
    read 4th paragraph down

    http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index....search=dangers
    read 4th paragraph up

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search/Micr...esktop-Search/

    I'm done.
    How are you done, when you didn't even start?

    None of these support your claim:

    wiki : The issue is control over data that should not be seen (by person or machine) Strike 1!

    ebusinessforum: controls over data access (see wiki) Strike 2!

    eweek: No mention of SOX or Sarbanes. (If this is to show the competition with Google, that was never disputed) Strike 3!

    You're out.

    Hey, at least you were right about the corporate iPhone plans last week, so it's not all turd stew.
    01-22-2008 03:34 PM
  15. crazycray's Avatar
    In defense of archie, those articles do in fact mention that IT departments are required to control the company's information and control who searches what. Microsoft, having an established presence in these corporations, was inturn expected to develop the tools to provide these new requirements.

    But this doesn't mean the law specifically says that Microsoft must issue free software as archie says.
    01-23-2008 02:20 PM
  16. cmaier's Avatar
    What the articles say is that SOX requires PREVENTING people from searching for what they're not supposed to search for.

    By creating a new search tool, it only increases the likelihood of someone doing so. It says the opposite of what archie suggests, unless you buy into this strained logic:

    1) prior to WDS, IT departments let people install any software they wanted (or at least any desktop search tool they wanted) -AND-
    2) prior to WDS, people installed alternative search tools, and these search tools were somehow able to access the information that needs to be kept under control -AND-
    3) after WDS, IT departments suddenly stopped letting these people run their other search tools -OR- people interested in accessing info without permission suddenly forgot how -AND-
    4) WDS provides magic functionality that permits searching of everything except this secret information -AND-
    5) this functionality is easier to achieve than simply hiding/password-protecting/access-controlling the secret information at the OS level -AND-
    6) the secure information is sitting around in shared drives in the first place
    01-23-2008 02:32 PM
  17. archie's Avatar
    In defense of archie, those articles do in fact mention that IT departments are required to control the company's information and control who searches what. Microsoft, having an established presence in these corporations, was inturn expected to develop the tools to provide these new requirements.

    But this doesn't mean the law specifically says that Microsoft must issue free software as archie says.
    Ah, thanks for sticking up for me there crazycray but I never said the law specifically stated that Microsoft must issue free software." What I did say is as quoted below:

    Sarbanes-Oxley actually started mandating that this sort of functionality be available to consumers. Microsoft had to release Microsoft Desktop Search...
    Because Microsoft already had this omnipresent placement on office PCs, the IT departments had no choice but to turn to M$ to provide them a solution for what was required of the company to adhere to the new Sarbanes-Oxley act. But in a sense it could be viewed in such a manner that they were speaking specifically of Microsoft to provide the solution.
    01-23-2008 03:59 PM
  18. archie's Avatar
    What the articles say is that SOX requires PREVENTING people from searching for what they're not supposed to search for.

    By creating a new search tool, it only increases the likelihood of someone doing so. It says the opposite of what archie suggests, unless you buy into this strained logic:

    1) prior to WDS, IT departments let people install any software they wanted (or at least any desktop search tool they wanted) -AND-
    2) prior to WDS, people installed alternative search tools, and these search tools were somehow able to access the information that needs to be kept under control -AND-
    3) after WDS, IT departments suddenly stopped letting these people run their other search tools -OR- people interested in accessing info without permission suddenly forgot how -AND-
    4) WDS provides magic functionality that permits searching of everything except this secret information -AND-
    5) this functionality is easier to achieve than simply hiding/password-protecting/access-controlling the secret information at the OS level -AND-
    6) the secure information is sitting around in shared drives in the first place
    It's interesting that you use the word "magic" to describe the very thing I said that M$ did in fact do for the IT departments.
    Why do you think this is not real? You are apparently in IT yourself so I find this absolutely astounding. I mean, jeez... it is mentioned in every article so why can you not accept this small fact that Microsoft did indeed design their search tool so that IT can determine which users can search and access specific information.
    And yes, secure information IS sitting around in shared drives in the first place.



    It seems to me that you are recognizing the fact that I am a Designer and Developer but you are failing to grasp that those of us in this field are required to take on the responsibility of IT departments. It started in the 90s when we typically worked in our little bubble of Macs amongst a sea of Windows machines (IT didn't want anything to do with us because we used Macs). Although the environment has changed greatly it seems that it is still our responsibility to integrate. Though now, in some companies it is us who has to do the integration for the others (Windows users). How's that for irony. Plus, I also have to do the ActionScripting and Javascripting and logic for the projects that I work on. So I would not discount this "designer" so quickly.
    01-23-2008 04:02 PM
  19. cmaier's Avatar
    archie, you are wrong again. I am not "in IT." I was a microprocessor designer for many years, and now I'm in an unrelated field.

    And as to your argument, the key issue for IT was NOT *addition* of WDS, but *prevention* of other (unsecure) search tools.

    And I say "magic" because it is far easier to prevent access at the file/record level than it is to rely on each tool (e.g.: search, word processor, etc.) to provide its own access protocol.

    I seldom agree with Mikec, but this time for sure he's right.
    01-23-2008 04:46 PM
  20. mikec#IM's Avatar
    In defense of archie, those articles do in fact mention that IT departments are required to control the company's information and control who searches what. Microsoft, having an established presence in these corporations, was inturn expected to develop the tools to provide these new requirements.

    But this doesn't mean the law specifically says that Microsoft must issue free software as archie says.
    IT shops has to put controls in place based on the business requirements and regulations. Indexing, logic, and presenatation ("Search") are functions. It has nothing to do with the release of WDS, which was Archie's assertion.
    01-23-2008 05:00 PM
  21. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Ah, thanks for sticking up for me there crazycray but I never said the law specifically stated that Microsoft must issue free software." What I did say is as quoted below:


    Because Microsoft already had this omnipresent placement on office PCs, the IT departments had no choice but to turn to M$ to provide them a solution for what was required of the company to adhere to the new Sarbanes-Oxley act. But in a sense it could be viewed in such a manner that they were speaking specifically of Microsoft to provide the solution.
    crazy was wrong too, but that's okay. those articles are poorly written.

    You can spin any way you want...it was obvious what you said. And now you try to change it...and guess what, you are still wrong.

    You said "Anyway, YES, it was Sarbanes-Oxley that forced Microsoft to release Desktop Search" in post 102. This is 100% false.

    It was wrong when you said it the first time, the second time, and every subsequent time. Repeating it will not make it true.
    01-23-2008 05:06 PM
  22. mikec#IM's Avatar
    It's interesting that you use the word "magic" to describe the very thing I said that M$ did in fact do for the IT departments.
    Why do you think this is not real? You are apparently in IT yourself so I find this absolutely astounding. I mean, jeez... it is mentioned in every article so why can you not accept this small fact that Microsoft did indeed design their search tool so that IT can determine which users can search and access specific information.
    And yes, secure information IS sitting around in shared drives in the first place.



    It seems to me that you are recognizing the fact that I am a Designer and Developer but you are failing to grasp that those of us in this field are required to take on the responsibility of IT departments. It started in the 90s when we typically worked in our little bubble of Macs amongst a sea of Windows machines (IT didn't want anything to do with us because we used Macs). Although the environment has changed greatly it seems that it is still our responsibility to integrate. Though now, in some companies it is us who has to do the integration for the others (Windows users). How's that for irony. Plus, I also have to do the ActionScripting and Javascripting and logic for the projects that I work on. So I would not discount this "designer" so quickly.
    Archie,

    For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)

    It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).

    The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)

    But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.
    01-23-2008 05:13 PM
  23. mikec#IM's Avatar
    archie, you are wrong again. I am not "in IT." I was a microprocessor designer for many years, and now I'm in an unrelated field.

    And as to your argument, the key issue for IT was NOT *addition* of WDS, but *prevention* of other (unsecure) search tools.

    And I say "magic" because it is far easier to prevent access at the file/record level than it is to rely on each tool (e.g.: search, word processor, etc.) to provide its own access protocol.

    I seldom agree with Mikec, but this time for sure he's right.
    Seldom? I thought we were all kum-bay-yah after the battery discussion :-) I don't recall any major disagreements sicne then.

    As for your post, it is spot on.
    01-23-2008 05:16 PM
  24. archie's Avatar
    Here's a quote I just pulled from the net. Heather Friedland is the product planner for desktop search within Microsoft. She is or course speaking about M$ Desktop Search tool.

    "One difference, said Friedland, are group policies that can be set by the IT manager to govern the types of searches allowed by the information workers. For example, the IT manager might designate that intranet searches or SharePoint searches are permissible, but not searches of individuals Outlook inboxes."

    Look cmaier... I mean mikec... err however you want me to address you. Heather says this is what it does so why can't you believe me when I say that is what it does as well.
    01-23-2008 05:22 PM
  25. archie's Avatar
    Archie,

    For a "designer/developer", you have a very provincial view on this. This all comes down to an inferioroty complex because you were a Mac user in a world of PCs. (How sad is that...)

    It's not "magic"; it's the perception that the search tool could crawl and get access to information that person should not have, and the sharing of that index (and data).

    The real issue is unsecured data and lax controls. No technology addresses this - it's a process and policy issue (which tech can be used to enforce.)
    Which is exactly why the software companies were called upon! JEEZ... you moron.

    But again, to stay on topic, this has nothing to do with SOX and the release of WDS.
    It does, you just said so yourself.
    01-23-2008 05:25 PM
129 ... 3456
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD