>I never said intolerant - he made a statement about they way he thought something should be done, with no attempt to justify why.

Well, maybe I missed something when you wrote:

"I still stand by my view of their intolerance of opinions differing from their own."

> He may or may not be right, I may or may not agree, neither is the point. What I am saying is some people set themselves up as experts & expect everyone to believe them, rightly or wrongly. It is all a matter of attitude. If you have the time to answer, then you should take the time to explain your answer. If,as a newcomer, I said to Craig, John, Cindy - what you are trying to do is wrong, then I would be expected to explain my point of view, so if any of those make a statement, they must justify themselves in the same way. (BTW, Craig, John, Cindy - if you are still reading this - I am not picking on you personally, to the exclusion of anyone else, my overall complaint is the general attitude)

I still don't see where Craig has set himself up as an expert. I have never read any of Craig's posts to say, "Hey, I am an expert, what I say is absolutely true." And no one here expects others to believe them, right or wrong.

Yes, if you challenged Craig, you would be expected to explain your point of view. But the reverse it true too. If you had asked Craig to explain his position, he would have. And he did, in response to someone else.

At no point to Craig say or imply that everyone should believe him.

>She probably was (& I took it as such), but it was not up to her to make any excuses for Craig.

For someone who doesn't like others telling them what they should do, you are certainly telling Cindy what she shouldn't.

>>Well, I hope you do stay and contribute, and I am pretty sure I can speak for Cindy and Craig. They may disagree with you, but I have found them to be very tolerant people.
>
>They probably are very tolerant people. But again, it is not up to you to speak for them, if they feel it appropriate, then they will do so themselves.

Fine.

>>I am not saying your view is wrong, I am just not seeing evidence to support it.
>That exemplifies what I am trying to say - you have your viewpoint & are not willing to budge from it - hence, I must be wrong (otherwise why perpetuate this thread ?). No halfway ground - it works for you, it doesn't work for me, but neither is wrong. You seem to be insistent on my justification for my particular view of a group (community, call it wahtever you want) that I was looking to enter, why haven't you pushed Craig so hard to justify his views, or ist it OK that he makes a statement of fact (being part of the "inner sanctum") & I, being an outsider, have no valid opinion ?

I am willing to budge from my view, if you can justify some of your statements. This is the same thing you are asking of Craig, to justify his statements. You haven't. You haven't even come close.

>If I stick around long enough, I may change my opinion (maybe that will be because I will be seen to be an insider though).