John,

>Look at the current month's editorial on "How we can help" They can start by addressing pointed critiques of the magazine.

I know you don't agree, but the survey indicates at least a superficial attempt to address concerns you have raised. The real story will be what they do with the survey results.

I don't agree with your earlier comments that the survey is too long. It took me only about 15 minutes, and gave me plenty of opportunity to be candid about how I see the magazine. You've asked them to address the community's concerns, and now you criticize them for a step in that direction. Why not thank them instead for that response?

I get the feeling that you will not be satisfied with *anything* other than the removal of the staff members that you have targeted. Pointing out the magazine's shortcomings technically is OK, but when you move into how they wanted you on board to silence you, how your stuff is now not worthy of a response, etc., you really do make this look more and more like a personal vendetta, and quite unprofessional, IMO.

>As somebody who "attempted" a scientific poll here yourself, you should shy away from debating whether something is scientific or not..< s >...

I see you picked up on my intentional irony... :-)

>Of course, there are folks that should have the Swiss flag as their flag on the UT. Total fence ridders with no opinion of their own. Then, there are 2-facers. Say one thing in public, and another in private..

I learned a few years ago that personality makes a huge difference in how we perceive each other. Some people see things "black or white", right or wrong, my way or no way. Others can hold differing viewpoints in suspense and see the good in all sides, and still not go crazy. Some of those fence-sitters may actually be very wise instead of wimpy. Depends on your point of view.

>Do I need to remind you of the optimism that flowed around here when I was named a Technical Editor?????

I was enthusiastic about it, too. I think your input could have made a big difference in the direction of FPA. Let me clarify... I'm not against *you*, John. It's the pointed personal attacks and self-focused public challenges that concern me. Easing up on those might make your points come across as more valid.