--- old	2017-11-09 06:43:53.735050547 -0600
+++ new	2017-11-09 06:43:55.854992416 -0600
@@ -4,11 +4,13 @@
 that Conservancy didn't respond to the filing immediately, but that's
 understandable: it takes time to prepare a formal response at the
 USPTO and an appropriate public statement.  No organization turns that
-kind of stuff around on a dime.  So SFLC feels ill-used because
-Conservancy decided to publish their public response at a time when it
-would get maximum attention, during SFLC's public conference?  It's a
-little hard for me to work up sympathy for SFLC on that one (it's not
-as if SFLC gave Conservancy any warning about the original action in
-the first place -- more on that below).  It is kind of nervy for SFLC
-to blame Conservancy for a timing opportunity that was basically
-SFLC's choice.
+kind of stuff around on a dime.  I don't know whether Conservancy
+intentionally timed their statement to go up during SFLC's conference
+-- I haven't asked them -- but even if they had, who could blame them?
+I would certainly have done so in their shoes: that's when the
+statement would be most effective, after all.  It's a little hard for
+me to work up sympathy for SFLC on this one (and it's not as if SFLC
+gave Conservancy any warning about the original action in the first
+place -- more on that below).  It seems kind of nervy for SFLC to
+blame Conservancy for a timing opportunity that was basically SFLC's
+choice.