It amazes me that posts, such as the one to which this replies, are characterized as "an attack", "create conflict" and are "ankle biting" (an description that's very demeaning on its face) by someone on the Yahoo board. I guess it's just not acceptable to EVER question anything said by Brian, even if you compliment his observation and give the benefit of the doubt in his intent in some aspects of what is said.

And it's interesting that the Yahoo message constitutes EXACTLY what it complains about.

Please note that there was not ONE substantive reply to my post, just one asking why it was directed to Ease and not Brian (which I answered). Not a single reply, argument, defense of Brian's statements/opinions after I contributed some depth of thought. No discussion - on a forum intended for discussion. But an attack from behind the shelter of another board. Ankle biting?

If there is a problem with what I posted, try attacking the words, and not the poster. And maybe try doing it "face-to-face".

Also note that the post by Brian was rather "up beat" and positive in its tone. But the opinions were IMO flawed (first) and seriously flawed (second) and deserved comment.

Perhaps I should just choose to let it slide, positive or negative, give certain posts no serious thought, and let others just believe whatever certain posters say. Or I could presume that everyone here has an independent mind and is capable of identifying the flaws in the thoughts and opinions of others (which I do believe is the case for most here). Or maybe it's time to seek an alternative method of discussion, and not be subject to attacks from the "outside", or inside, for pointing out valid flaws or, at minimum, flaws worthy of productive argument. "Can't argue with what SGE posted, but I can attack him just for having pointed out flaws - but never say a word about those flaws".

I'm actually rather shocked, as this is the second or third time recently where that Yahoo poster/message writer (Ron) has attacked from behind the scenes. Dispite our occasional differences of opinion where we've agreed to disagree, I held him higher regard than this behavior suggests.

Perhaps he was referring more to my most recent "war of the words" with ease (keep your dictionary - correction, all dictionaries available to mankind - handy! LOL). Anyone following that thread should have recognized that the "elevation of rudeness" was instigated by ease (IMO), and I responded accordingly. Who is guilty?

JMHOs,

SGE