[snip]
>>I was referring to my initial message #878550.
>>If Whil does (1) not give names and (2) does not say that it's about some people only and (3) does not give the exact examples, then it's an accusation in the wild towards us/me/some/whoknows. I have no indication that he was referring to me, but I also don't have an indication that he wasn't. Moreover, I take a stance for others, more than for myself.
>
>I think that's a bit odd. When someone posts a message such as the one Whil posted, I usually don't think that they are referring to me. What makes you think Whil may have been referring to you? I reread his message, and saw nothing in there that points to anyone specfically. If I had to guess, and it's only a guess, my guess is that he is in part referring to Steven Black's posts on the Fox Wiki:
>
>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~SuggestionsForTheHentzenwerkeWebsite
>
>Have you and Whil exchanged e-mails or posts that I am not aware of?
>
>I also do not understand your statement that you are taking a stand for other, more than for yourself. If you are not sure who Whil is referring to, then how can you defend them?

Chris, it's not so odd, in my perception. I have participated in and even initiated some Whil/Books-related threads here this last week. They were all meant to be constructive (I always try to be constructive), but of course they contain critical comments, all according to the good debate standards of the UT. Whil's words about 'us' (so, you to) here at the UT (being a forum) were not really flattering. And he was not disciminating between 'some' and 'most'.

I have seen maybe one statement of one person that might be considered not-nice for Whil. But for the rest it were statements within acceptible debate rules. I really am amazed that Whil thinks otherwise.

Steven Black's comments and webpage are also within acceptible debate rules, according to me. Steven has sought contact and Whil should have reacted.

Notice that Whil does not react in this thread either, as he has pronounced, very consequently. But in my eyes unwise. His tactic is to write a very large article/proclamation filled from top to bottom with strong opinions. That's fine, but it's hardly acceptible to post it over here if he does not want to participate in the discussion that, of course, follows, in a forum like the UT.

Most reactions on his message have been too mild for him, that is, nothing but kind words, not even mildly critical side notes. Mine is the exception. So, I'm a tiny minority. Well, so be it. To be sure, I do respect his decision to move on and to stop publishing new books. I have focused my critical comment almost purely on his negative words about other people, in this forum and alike. Remember him writing 'vile invective'? I had to look into a dictionary and the wording is not nice.