I have given more thought to my choice of word, and I have come to the conclusion that it was the best choice to summarize my thoughts in one word. I feel no remorse for saying it and won't apologize for it.

Could I have used other words instead of that used? Sure. But not in one word. Would different words have been less offensive? I doubt it.

Let's be honest here. Was EQF offended by the word itself? Or by the fact that I so succinctly described in ONE WORD his efforts as being an utterly useless disingenuous confabulation of epic proportions rivaled only by those of huckster politicians?

Or instead, perhaps the question itself is what's offensive? Perhaps I am offensive simply because I have asked the one question that constitutes a foundational threat to all the work and effort by EQF. After all, if these "EM type signals" turn out to be an error, the whole house of cards he has built comes tumbling down.

So I ask, where was the real offense? In the word itself? Or in the meaning conveyed by the word?

Oh, a final thought, where does someone get the temerity to post messages on a forum they correctly point out isn't theirs and then demand that people not respond to those messages? Does that not defeat the whole purpose of a _discussion_ forum? And no, responding in a new thread is not appropriate, for that defeats the whole point of message threading. Although, I can offer a solution if anyone is interested.

Brian