> How do you think the WT knew to look for this specific document? That's your argument? That no one does trial balloons through WT? How do you know that big

> How do you think the WT knew to look for this specific document? That's your argument? That no one does trial balloons through WT? How do you know that bigger sources were not also informed and decided to sit on it? (I found out about it through a line of contacts that had nothing to with WT.) Suppose we accept your "it's not a trial balloon because it wasn't intended to test public opinion". That leaves us with "it was intended to slip under the radar and to pop up later as a done-deal". Are you happier with that? I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a trial balloon. You're free to assume malign intent on their part. >> Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? > I don't see your point here at all. You claimed that the mass of published proposals was somehow evidence against a specific proposal being a trial balloon. Since there's a comparable mass of things that actually become law and/or regulation, that claim doesn't make any sense.