>>Another point is more important. I hate to get advices how I should behave >>personally, and specifically how I should reply on UT (surely I strictly >>adhere to Michel's standards). I don't understand why you are trying to shift >>the thread to discussing of my or someone else personal weaknesses (even if I >>have some). Basically, you gave the answer and I gave the answer, you can >>dislike my answer but it shouldn't go personal.

I don't think I attacked you personally. I certianly did not focus on any personal weakness you may have. I think you are reading much more into my response than what was intended. Take a deep breath big fella<g>.

I did have issue with the advice. As a fellow MVP, I hold you - and likewise - you should hold me to a higher standard. I am not telling you how to behave - I am sure I did not do that. If you took that way - well, I think you need to be a little thicker skinned and not be so sensitive in that regard. But, if you give advise - or suggest something - be prepared to defend your positon if necessary. This is what made CIS so good. I don't recall ever seeing you up on CIS - so you might not be privy to that experience. Believe me when I tell you that my comments are offered in the spirt of being constructive.

Ed, you need to know that I have real problems when advise is given - with no basis in fact. If I did such a thing - I would hope you - and anybody else would hold me accountable in that regard.

Civility is one thing - and I hold firm that you can be critical and civil at the same time. I don't think Michel has a problem with that. The quality of a forum is not measured in how much feel good stuff goes on. Rather, it is measured by the accuracy of advice given, the ability to critique, and the sense of community that can rise out of all that.

That said, lets get back to work...