-snip-
>
>Jess,
>I would have thought you have been a member of this forum long enough to know that Ed worships nobody but himself.
>
>Being awarded a doctorate will only serve to enhance his own overinflated idea of himself.
>
>His lack of wit, & inability to express himself cogently, has regularly shown itself in the form of language that is unacceptable to the majority of people.
>

What? I would expect people being uncomfortable with some of Ed's replies, but I am surprised that someone would say he lacks wit or cogency. Having been a regular here at least as long as Ed has I can say this is just not true.

>Shortly after joining UT, I received the following in a private post, from another UT member, which, like his replies to many VFP questions, it is very accurate. :
>
>"You will find that the inimitable Ed Rauh is the most sarcastic (always negatively overtoned) and descriptive (often with violent/bloody/carnal imagery) of the bunch. Also the person who requested the "twit filter" and who promotes it most. Funny, but if the tone here was respectful and a tad more thorough, a "twit" filter wouldn't be required. And the real twits (of which I number Mr. Rauh as number 1) would summarily be out of here by management decree."

I understand that some people would find some language offensive, I am not one of them. From that standpoint I am not in the majority as you characterize it.

I think the cause of some people's discontent is Ed's frankness. If he is lacking something it is inhibition to tell people how he feels about a subject. To what I would add that I can't remember a thread where he wouldn't be thorough and candid in explaining where he is coming from. IOW you always see him coming, unlike this person that sent you the email.

I'd take people like Ed against the FUD-mongers and rumor-mongers anytime, even if at the receiving end of a disagreement, discussion or flame. We always have disagreements in any forum (online or otherwise) and I put more weight on people that can be honest, even to the point of being blunt on the issue being discussed.

To end, just a disclaimer that my reply responds to your comments about Ed and not to the exchange between Ed & Jess. IOW I am continuing the thread drift started by your message.