>> The most positive thing you could have done in the situation is to add a
>> comment to the discussion like "To expand on what Craig said, you might
>> enjoy reading ... because ..."
>
>Maybe... However, Craig is recognized as an expert by most of this community and I do believe that gives him the extra responsibility of providing an explanation because it's more likely that some readers will take his posts as holy truths. Feel free to disagree with me as this is just my opinion.
>
>Daniel

Can I just say that I agree with your opinion, an explanation should have been given. Craig was not so "impossibly busy" to respond, so should have taken the time to explain his response. It should not be up to someone else to add the explanation.

I do disagree on one point though - I think you'll find that this isn't a community, rather a small clique of self-appointed experts who tolerate outsiders looking in, as long as they don't express opinions at variance with their own. The "inner sanctum" do not have to give explanations for their opinions, they are holy truths.

The whole group has the air of a fanatical religious sect, blindly worshipping Foxpro, with a small group of high priests, whose proclaimations must be accepted as god-given truths & questioning those words is tantamount to blasphemy.

Just my opinion.