And, as a Fool, I always welcome all points of view...that's how we learn. My issue was "how" you said what you said...not your right to say it, nor necessarily the basic content of what you said.

Murph,

I responded only to the content of the articles by Van Knapp. Clearly, you have had nothing to say of any specificity about my observations to the content of those articles. Therefore, there was no need for you to respond to me, personally, at all.

As you felt that you needed to respond (presumably because you provided the links) it would have been more appropriate to respond to my observations rather than what you perceive as my tone.

If you don't like my tone, or what I have to contribute, put me on ignore. But perhaps you will think about contributing something with a little more substance beyond providing links with only perfunctory comments and complaining about the way people say things rather than what they say.

kelbon