>>>John, I am in complete agreement. I also took the liberty of scanning >>Rod's posts and noticed that typically there are only 3 or 4 a month, >>unless you look at November / December 2003, when suddenly, guess who Rod >>is once again defending. Fear of offending the lilies prevents me stating >>exactly how I feel about it, so rather than diluting my post to point of >>becoming gaseous I will simply button my lip.
>
>Thanks for doing the research on this subject. If you take a look over the long haul (5-7 years) you'll see that I have never been a big time poster here. You are probably correct in some of the posts I do make that I defend JVP. But let me make it clear on one thing. I know that any messages posted by me in regards to JVP will be taken with a block of salt. What people fail to understand is that I dont always agree with JVP. I yell at him regularly when he makes posts like "I'm outa here. I won't post again". I have called him foolish and melodramatic when he does that. Because --- I know he will be back like a moth to a flame.
>
>Go ahead and challenge my motives. Which is what your post implies. Heck with the new rules it may be construed as a personal attack. Correct ? You see it is a fine line with what is construed as a personal attack here now.
>
>Not fragile,
>Rodman

Hi Rod, regarding "Go ahead and challenge my motives. Which is what your post implies.", if you took the time to reciprocate my 'research' you would find that I have both a reasonable command of the English language and typically I say it like it is! Ergo, I rarely resort to implying, especially in a medium such as this, which is fraught with opportunities for miscommunications. Regarding my post being "construed as a personal attack", you forgot the smiley!

And the large block of salt - I have a semi (articulated truck for U.K. lurkers) trying to back into the driveway as I write.