In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote

Sir, I hope you will not feel singled out by me, but how does abusing
the man's name lend credibility to what appears to be a reasonably
scholarly hypothesis? This is only one example of what I mean when I say
I don't give much credence to either Mr. Fetters or his detractors.
Sarcasm, rudeness, disrespect, arrogance, snottiness, and all the other
exhibits of hostility that permeate both sides of this discussion - and
so many others here - may bring self-righteous snickers to the
like-minded, but do *nothing* to persuade your opponents or the neutral
lurkers.

You are totally missing the extreme emotions associated with this issue.
People have had friend's lives snuffed out, in their eyes, due to this man's
kit. There is no logic that can be associated in this discussion, and
nobody involved really gives a sh*t whether you or others have a warm fuzzy
feeling about the thread. Get it?

By whose authority do you speak for everyone else in the group? The
gentleman to whom I replied has already posted a thank you to me and an
edited version of his comments. I also note that he subsequently
separated his personal rage from his intellectual assessments.

As far as logic being associated with the discussion, there seem to be
quite a few here who are attempting to discuss the facts rationally and
intelligently. My point is, for those who are *genuinely attempting* to
discuss the topic logically, and convince others of the merits of their
arguments, mixing personal hostility into the discussion is
counterproductive.

On the other hand, if your sole objective is to vent rage, please go
ahead. I have no quarrel with that or with you. I am *not* missing the
extreme emotions as you suggest. I understand them and I have compassion
for those who have lost friends and family. And if my comments have
stirred your pain or anger, I'm sorry, as that is not my intention.