I submit that your statement relies on an unfounded premise (at least from my scan of this thread) that wonderous works for the company.

Also, by your standard, if wonderous doesn't work for said company, he's still complying with your "standard." Yet, you're still making an implicit accusation.

The purpose of my initial comment was to address the potshot accusation of astroturfing after, IMHO, wonderous had responded in good faith.