Thanks for your very full reply, which makes some very valid points.

I will try to make my comments brief.
a) I may be wrongly ascribing characteristics to Craig, but they are based on the quality/tone of his reply. This is the only way I have to judge him, as I do not know him.
b) People obviously put a lot of effort in to achieve MVP status. Do they have to keep that up, or is it a badge for life. If the effort goes down, can it be taken away, if not, it is meaningless.
c) I judge people as individuals. In my first reply, I had not noticed MVP status - I don't know what it means, if anything.
d) I did not pre-judge, it was based on a specific reply. If you knew me, I would take offence at being called prejudiced (I assume that's what "predjuiced" means - another American spelling ?), as you don't, then your view is largely irrelevant. But, what are your reasons to call me prejudiced, are you ascribing characteristics to me that aren't there based solely on my postings here ? Why do you feel it acceptable for you to do that, while it is not acceptable for me to do so ?
e) As to Craigs reply, I felt no need to ask the reason "why", I knew the answer. I didn't add the reason to my reply, because I felt that it was Craig's responsibility to provide the information. Also, by adding my interpretation of what Craig meant, I may be totally wrong - only Craig knows the reasons behind his reply - it may have had nothing to do with Windows guidelines, for all I know, he doesn't know they exist either - it could have been pure chance that his particular view of how something should be done matched the guidelines & there may have been different reasons for his statement.
f) My views on the "inner sanctum" were based on many other replies, not just this one. The religious allusions were based on the preceding reply, but I would probably have used them anyway

I accept that I have probably judged Craig too harshly. But I still stand by my argument that his first reply was lacking in information & had the air of a proclamation. My reply was simply adding my view, as a newcomer, backing up the comments of another respondent. I have obviously hit on a sore point, just looking at the number & content of the ensuing replies, so I get the idea that there may be more than a grain of truth in my view. Why is there such a sensitivity in a newcomer stating that the group appears to be more of a small, exclusive clique, rather than an inclusive community ?