It has come to my attention that some reviewers in this forum may have undisclosed professional ties to Quark. There is nothing wrong with company affiliates posting comments. However to do so without mentioning this relationship is deceptive and arguably inappropriate.

The reviews in question may be coming from the same person, using aliases, or may represent a larger, more organized and concerted effort to influence this forum.

Normal, unaffiliated end-users may recognize the remarks in question. Simply ask yourself if the review you read appears to describe the application that you know of as Quark 8.x (barely improved since the old days) or if it seems to describe some other ideal, chimerical, essentially non-existent page-layout program that we all still wish for, but do not yet have.

Another clue to this deception, are reviewers who insist on attacking those of us who post sensible critical comments. This in itself should send up a Big Red 72 pt Helvetica Bold Flag.

There is no need to harass those of us with critical views of Quark. It's bad form. Some of us have been using this program, in all its dubious glory and imperfection, for better or worse, till death do us part, since 1987! Our views are relevant, and from a friendlier company, would be invited, valued and appreciated.