>
>Romanticize the past all you want... As you imply, the record speaks for itself...
>
>
>People undermine their own credibility. I simply compare and contrast the facts. Go back and see some of the exchanges with Ed and I think you will find I was not off base. Here is an example:
>
>Ed used to unmercifully draw issues out when they could have been sucinctly answered in one short post. I contend he did this to boost his message count. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Otherwise, back off...
>

I don't "romanticize the past". The past is fact, it is reality and we are all accountable to what we've done. So even if I had "backed off" the record would still show what went on. In this case the past is present and I don't write it off as "romantic".

>Not only did he draw things out, it was often an inapproprate or a far from optimal technique. At first, I was nice about it. But after a while, it got quite annoying and yes, I took a scorched Earth approach to solving the problem. In the end, he stopped throwing out bad advice an issues he did not have a clue about. Remember, the ratio and quantity of tecnically correct posts is what counts.

About the record, let's entertain that for a minute here: I would contend Ed helped more folks than most other UT participants by any measure even today regardless of the number of posts it took to answer a question. So did you do a favor to the VFP community in the UT or a disservice?