Wow, that a real leap. So because the two PRs were worded the same, one man = the other man? Would that stand up in a court of law? Come on. I'm all for "facts" that may prove my perception of this company is not correct, but I'm supposed to base my trust in this company because the wording was the same? Could they have just been lazy and resused the old wording as a template?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
