>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 think you are being a bit paranoid here, and vastly over-stating what Whil wrote. For one, I am 100% certain that Whil was not referring to me or most of the people on the UT. So when you write that Whil was also referring to "me", you are way off base.

>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.

I think that when you call someone's web site "shi**y", as apparently Steven Black did, you have gone past not-nice:

http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~SuggestionsForTheHentzenwerkeWebsite

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

You consider that comment Steven Black apparently made about Whil's site to be within acceptable debate rules?

>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.

The tone of Whil's note was very mild compared to what was written about him on the Fox Wiki. I think he showed more restraint than I would have. I think he is fairly tired of the nonsense that has been written, and doesn't care to get into it anymore.

>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.

The definition from dictionary.com for those words are as follows:

vile - Loathsome; disgusting
invective - Denunciatory or abusive language

I would certainly categorize someone calling Whil's website "shi**y" as vile invective. Furthermore, that is only what I see on the Fox Wiki. I have no idea what else was written about Whil on the other Fox forums.