ChuckEvans wrote: "NDA (Non-Disclosure-Agreement). What shit! I realize it is boilerplate stuff, but it's like lobbyists choosing elected officials...they KNOW they are there to do the "employer's" bidding." What employee of what business is NOT expected to do their employer's bidding? What has that to do with NDAs? NDAs are in most cases necessary for the protection of interests, and there is nothing at all sinister or dishonest about that. Do you think that people who don't lock their front doors are the only honest people? In today's world, their trust is actually stupidity, I'm sure you'd agree. In the case of NDAs signed by beta testers, which is what I believe you're criticizing, the NDAs help ensure the interity of the beta process and help prevent needless trash talking (or for that matter, premature hype) outside of the company. They prevent the compromise of proprietary data, assets. They most certainly don't ensure that an NDA-bound employee will only say what they think the company wants to hear. Any decent software company wants it beta testers to accurately report flaws, not to kiss butt. "And because the "company" (CL in this case) has complete control of what a testor says." I'm sorry, but that sounds like groundless conspiracy theory, and is very wrong in my experience. You're accusing CL of dishonest manipulation of its beta team's feedback, which I assume you were never privvy to. Have you ever been a beta tester? If so, and if that was your experience, the company wasn't worth beans. I've beta tested for one of the biggest media conglomerates in the world. They wanted nothing more than to hear about what they were doing wrong. They wanted us to find flaws which could be fixed prior to launching their product. Brown-nosers, pardon the term, weren't wanted, weren't appreciated, and were no help at all. Neither were they rewarded for their goody-goodiness. I don't mean to be grumpy, and I sincerely don't mean to pick on Chuck in a personal manner. Legitimate criticims of an apparently flawed product are a healthy and necessary thing. P5 appears to be very criticizable, but I've read so many unfounded, speculative things said (as if they were fact) about employees and beta testers at CL that are IMO way over the line. Jackson wrote: "I'd just stay away from blanket statements that people find offensive and stating an opinion as a fact." Words of wisdom.