>From Rich: The following is obviously abbreviated and probably taken out of context:
> ...rather than continue to blather forever about claims that go back 22 years, Ah, I see the "blather" word is now being used to explain CF claims for the past 22 years. Look, Rich, expressing your skepticism towards a number of CF claims is perfectly acceptable. We ALL have differing perspectives on these matters. I've obviously expressed opinions that imply Rossi's somewhat unpredictable wunder-cats are likely to an authentic phenomenon, but I could be wrong. Hopefully, we'll all know a lot more before the end of the year... but then perhaps not. What is less acceptable, IMHO, is to publicly psycho-analyze the perceptions of others in a manner that is not conducive of generating a genuine feedback from the individual you have targeted. You use interesting words, like "catalyze" that seemingly gives a more statesmanlike impression of your intentions, of trying to assist others to "see-the-light". But I think you might be failing to consider the possibility that the light you wish others to be "catalyzed" by may be nothing more than the light bulb burning within the confines your own head. State your case and leave it at that. Unless specifically invited to so so, stop trying to state the cases of others - for their benefit. They are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
