>-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.

I would just like to add that a few days ago I was less than professional in a comment to Ed and I received no flaming responses where it would have been almost justifiable for him to do so. In fact, he even offered a more detailed solution to a problem of mine before I posted a retraction. Likely better than what I would have done.

Renoir