>Ed,
>
>At least you didn't let me down. I knew you were going to respond.
>
>>Walter, John's entitled to his opinions on the aspects of the quality of the magazine's output, as an author of articles, a reader of the magazine, and someone who participated in the editorial preparation of the product. It's not an issue of his critque being invalid, his not giving FPA a chance to respond, or his tone being abusive and improper. I'd suggest keeping your far less qualified commentary out of it; he's been in the trenches on this from all sides, and you have a clue from none of them, except perhaps as a subscriber (I don't know, or particularly care to know, if you subscribe). If you have an informed opinion, feel free to express it.
>
>That's what i did.
>

Walter, your ethical system is, from my POV, serious flawed. You lack the intellectual integrity to post statements in the context in which the statements were made. Your criticism of JVP is unwarranted. You've completely failed to explain in any way, shape, or form the failings of John's feelings of disappointment in and disapproval of FPA's direction and quality of content.

I'll not ask you to do me any favors. I'd ask anyone who feels a need to respond to this simple statement of complete disgust and disrepect for whatever you attempt to pass off as intellectual contribution to the community to examine your efforts and motives, and give you the full measure of credit you've earned by your past efforts.

You're already following the correct course of action by active pursuit of self-examination, it's just that most of us examine our thoughts and beliefs rather than the interior anatomy of our lower digestive tracts.