Would you help raise money to combat Washington Trout propaganda?

Grandpa,

What, really, is the point of your poll question? I think it's about as pointless as asking BB members if they would help raise money to combat WDFW, USFWS, NMFS, & NPS propaganda. Or, how about we combat our own bulletin board propaganda? Is every opinion propaganda? Are facts propaganda?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Aunty M has it down..the point is that 70% of those polled so far oppose WT. Not scientific but as valid as WT's "studies".....I had a lot of fun helping little kids fish today on Greenlake and those laughing, appreciative little kids are what this is all about in my opinion. These liberal dinosaurs who want to impose their "anti" world on the majority need to get a life.

So the point is....we need to stand up and combat groups like WT if they use extreme measures to force their narrow agenda on us....hanging an environmental name on an organization doesn't make it good. It is the actions that count...like suing....

I just sent in my $35 to support WT again this year. Wish I could afford to add a few zeroes behind it, too. Becuase the narrow agenda you mention is just this: to save our wild fish!!!

I thank my lucky stars there are organizations like WT willing to put their neck out for our wild fish and wild places. Unlike you, hatchery fish and paved wilderness is not where it's at for me.

Good fishing to you,

Back Eddy

Back Eddy

I apprecdiate your dedication to your cause. I just think $35 could be better spent...but we will agree to disagree.

Wonder just where that 35 is going? Ya know they endose and support efforts by the Humane Society of the United States..

WT is an animal rights organization and not a feel good trout club

My guess.... into a lawyers pocket.

Grandpa, Driftboater and Elkrun,

As long as the membership of Washington Trout is happy with the way their fees are utilized, why the hell should you guys care?

Is the Humane Society now a fringe group Driftboater? The only thing I can see that you might have to worry about from them is if they catch you beating your dog...

...because they think somehow casting as many negative aspersions as possible will keep anyone considering joining away...?

Most people join WT out of concern for the health of wild fish runs, IMO...so I highly doubt the likes of the grandpa's of the world crying PETA!! every time this subject comes up will have much influence on a decision such as that.

Yeah, but what about this Aunty:

Let's say Grandpa and the rest of the WT haters suddenly decided that Hood canal shrimp needed to be protected at all costs! (meaning NO more shrimping!)

I'd just bet that you'd be singin' a little different tune about the freedom to express radical, inflammatory, unsubstantiated opinions then...

Remember, PETA says shrimp are animals too!!! :p

4Salt,,

Big difference from your local Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
Shame on you for not knowing the difference, ignorance is no excuse nowdays!

"combat Washington Trout propaganda?"

..and this isn't?

My mistake then driftboater,

I thought you was talkin' bout the nice folks that take care of abused cats and dogs.

With all of the PETA paranoia around, I guess I jumped the gun! (pun intended )

4Salt,,

Washington Trout supported efforts from our local HSUS/PAC in Puget Sound. I am not sure of their entire involvement but they did endorse the efforts publically, wished I had a list of financial contributions and I would bet WT would be there but I do not ,I can only speculate and since Ramon has never replied to any of my direct questions regarding this, the speculation continues to grow.

4Salt,

forgot to mention many make that same mistake, thus the reason they raise millions of dollars a year. They are very good at decieving their donators..

The reason I speak for WT is because it's my job. I can't imagine that anyone else would go through the frustration of entering this particular arena to speak for WT without getting paid.

These are not debates. I give WT's position or respond to specific queries, and then people accuse me of lying, or being guilty of something that they have apparantly made up out of thin air, or imply that because I advocate a position against their self interest , then I am apparently within a whisker of committing crimes against property and people, capable of doing harm to fellow citizens. (That wasn't "borderline," auntie?)

Future posts make clear that many people don't even read my posts before responding. I have attempted to summarize the science supporting WT's position, and invited readers to review documents on our web site. NOw auntie says that she hasn't seen any. She wants to know why we don't get involved in harvest issues or sue NMFS. I have responded to her several times to explain that WT has always and still is fighting to reform harvest practices in Washington. We did sue NMFS over salmon harvest in Puget Sound. We did not win all we hoped but we did win the public the opportunity to help shape harvest policy. NMFS will now have to prepare a full Environmental Impcat Statement before approving harvest plans in PS. The EIS has to examine a range of alternatives to the proposed plan, including significantly reduced, and even no harvest. Every one of you will have the opportunity to review and offer input to the EIS before it is approved. Enough credible voices will be able to influence the outcome. WT will be there. Who of you will be?

Smalma doesn't find WT's hatchery science credible, and he doesn't think nets are a problem. That should really suprise no one. What surprises me (though less and less) is that most of you are willing to treat his word as gospel on hatcheries, but seem to find him more fallable on harvest. Mark Twain said, "show me where a man gets his corn pone, and I'll tell you what his opinion is."

I have attempted to communicate WT's positions and mission as clearly and honestly as possible. I do not wish to force anyone to agree with either, but neither do I appreciate vilification for being an advocate. I absolutley can not take part in discussions that attempt to insert slanderous insinuations about WT the organization, except to deny them in the strongest terms. In the future I will attempt to respond when I can to civil inquiries, but I will not participate in baitings.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

...and someone wondered aloud why some people are hesitant to mention their affiliation or membership with WT publicly on this board....



Thanks for sticking your chin out there Ramon. Wild fish need strong advocates, even though I don't agree 100% with the ideaology of your organization I admire the passion and conviction with which you advocate for wild steelhead and salmon.

Ramon,

Should I just continue speculating that WT endorsed not only with their name but their wallet.

A simple yes or no will do.
Will WT be supporting them again if they push another intiative next fall?

Just asking simple questions in hopes of simple yes or no answers.

Ramon -
I'm afraid you are making my point for me! You state that you "absolutely can not take part in discussions that attempt to insert slanderous insuations about WT the organization". However in a thread a few days ago you all but accussed WDFW and its staff of lying - it is probably just as well that discussion disappeared.

You stated above in this thread that I don't "find WT hatchery science credible". In fact I have not seen any WT hatchery science but rather WT supporting their argument with other's science (mostly published). I have absolutley no problem with that and have no problem with that science.

My largest problem was with the mis-leading use of "science" in WT news releases. For example the citing of the Feather River hatchery yearling chinook predation on wild chinook fry as what may be typical of hatchery steelhead and coho without having the honesty to acknowledging that the study was with chinook and it may or may not be typcial for other species.

I further objected to your double standard of dismissinng my observations but using various personal communications in your arguments. It was not that I found the science not credible but rather your uses of that information.

You further state "he doesn't think nets are a problem". What I actually said was "I'm not of fan of gill nets and am concern about by-catch and the potential of selective pressures that gill nets can put on a population. However I find that they are very minor player in the depressed status of salmonid populations that we care about." As I have stated a number of times for Puget Sound chinook the information that I have examined leads me to believe that habitat factors are the largest limiters of Puget Sound wild chinook. Be happy to go into more detail if anyone wishes.

But even if one were to accept that harvest or more appropriately over-harvest is a major factor in the status of those fish the impacts from gill nets continue to less than a major factor. If you wish to look at the various harvest impacts in more detail I refer you to appendix A of the 2003 co-managers Puget Sound Chinook Fisheries Management Plan - believe WT has a copy. If you don't I'll be happy to supply you with a copy of the appendix. From memory I think you'll find that for the extreme north Sound stocks (Nooksack and Skagit) the majority of the impacts are in Canadian waters (mostly sport and troll), for the Snohomish the largest impacts come from the West Coast of Vancouver Island fisheries (sport and troll) and Puget Sound recreational. For the White River spring chinook that largest impact (more than 90% of the impacts) is from the Puget Sound recreational fisheries. For the Strait of Juan de Fuca stocks the majority of impacts occur in Alaska (SE) and BC. The South Sound stocks and the Skokomish gill net fisheries (most tribal) have larger impacts.

I find your characterizations of my comments a mis-represntation of my statements and there in lie the problem.

Tight lines
Smalma

I think it is great to have NGOs advocating for better management of our natural resources, as long as they remain impartial. In the case of WT, they are essentially in the pockets of government (govt with money anyway), and in my mind they lose their credibity as objective advocates. An example is the Cedar River Hatchery that WDFW and the City of Seattle are proposing. How can they argue against hatcheries with native species and simply ignore hatcheries where non-native species are propogated??? I'll tell you how. They are being PAID in "research grants" for their silence.

What a bunch of hypocrites. . .

I think it is great to have NGOs advocating for better management of our natural resources, as long as they remain impartial. In the case of WT, they are essentially in the pockets of government (govt with money anyway), and in my mind they lose their credibity as objective advocates. An example is the Cedar River Hatchery that WDFW and the City of Seattle are proposing. How can they argue against hatcheries with native species and simply ignore hatcheries where non-native species are propogated??? I'll tell you how. They are being PAID in "research grants" for their silence.

What a bunch of hypocrites. . .

I missed something somewhere??

Ramon

Here is a straight forward question: What is your end game? When all the wild fish are "saved" and all the hatchery fish are gone what will you do? Fish for them? Let the tribes gill net them? Take pictures of them?

One more thing Ramon...Previous postings with references to examples of extreme environmentalist behaviors were not meant to accuse you personally of such actions but to illustrate what measures extemists sometimes take to advance their causes. It was meant to say that using lawsuits to get your way could lead down the road to extremism and would ultimately narrow your base of support. As you can see, on this board anyway, your group is opposed 70% to 30%. It is possible to oppose WT's methods and still support wild fish restoration.

Don't sell yourself short Aunty. I think you wield a lot more influence here and on the other boards than you give yourself credit for.

I believe that Ramon has demonstrated that he can "take some heat." He probably takes more than anyone else. (except maybe chappy )

Aunty you must admit, if it were your organization (RFA) that were being bombarded with this much innuendo and outright hostility (unfounded or not) would you want to continue trying to defend your position here when (as Ramon pointed out) nobody seems to be listening, (OK, 30% of those polled are) and the rest are just slingin' mud?

I would be happy to listen to the answers of the questions I posed to him..

I said I would be happy to respond to specific queries. The problem is that whenever I post, it creates a flurry of responses, and the format on this board doesn't allow me to review all the posts while I'm responding. If I miss anybody, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Auntie,

I can take the heat. It's my job. I will say that in court, the kind of childish crap that I am objecting to here would simply not be allowed. You said you think debate is a good thing. How about practicing it? IN case you didn't know, it involves speaking to the points your opponent raises. Instead of calling me names or attacking my character, speak to some of the points I actually made in my last post. I'll remind you of two: DO you believe WT is involved enough in harvest issues? Do you think implying that we are capable of criminal behavior is going too far?

Smalma

First, let me say that my reference to your post wasn't so much directed at you as at your acolytes, who I believe act hypocrytically when they are willing to cite your expert opinion as objective truth when you tell them what they want to hear, but then seem to find you as human as the rest of us when you challenge some of their beliefs. To be frank, I really would prefer not going toe to toe with you in this forum. I think we can accomplish more by just presenting our competing positions rather than directing our posts to each other. You're a good advocate for your position, and I try my best; maybe we can leave it at that.

Havng said that, I find it near impossible to debate you on issues of who is being misleading. I fnd that you often seem to misinterpret my remarks or mischaracterise my positions, making elaborate, often eloquent cases against something I didn't say. It's an old technique.

You disagree with WT's interpretation of the evidence. For instance, we believe the Feather River Study does bear on this case; that's why we included it in our complaint and in the expert declaration by Sam Wright supporting the complaint. You think it isn't or shouldn't be relevant. You can make the case why you think so, but disagreement doesn't make either of our positions misleading.

You know as well as I do that a Press Release is an advocacy tool where WT gets to make its case. If you'll pardon me, I'll allow WDFW to make it's own case. So far they haven't said anything (publicly) about the Feather River citation. They have publicly made misrepresentations of basic facts. For instance, the timing of when they turned in applications for take authorization for the hatcheries. They said they turned them in in 2001. That's just not true, not a matter of their interptretation. They also said they have indication the "no predation is occuring." Is no predation occuring? Is that what WDFW knows?

And finally, I'm sorry but I cannot take seriously your accusations of being misleading in the context of this particular debate when you sign the post "smalma."

Fish Pirate

I've followed your posts with interest on other boards. I thought you were better informed. WT has been and is significantly involved in the Cedar River hatchery issue. We brought a case against the city of Seattle in 1999 over the inadequacy of the EIS for the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan, which included the plans for the proposed sockeye hatchery. We are working with the city of Seattle and other stakeholders to improve the planned operations of the hatchery by serving on the Cedar River Anadromous Fish Committee. Other members of that committee have publicly accused us of trying to block the hatchery because we are pressing for scientifically sound planning and operation of the facility (which is really our goal in the PS case). So there you go.

Driftboater.

WT endorsed the trap-ban initiative (I assume that's what you're talking about), as did many other environmental organizations. We never gave it any money. We endorsed it for the same fundamental reason we endorsed the net-ban initiative. The state was inadequately managing small mammal trapping, to the detriment of a variety of resources (including some wild fish) and seemed intransigent about making improvement, so a ban became the best option by default. I can not say for sure what we will do if the initiative proponents refile. We did endorse it the first time, so it is a possibility, but we would have to look at the new initiative and conditions on the ground.

Incidentally, that is the same position we are taking in our hatchery suit. We are saying that hatcheries are currently being operated in a way that is harming PS chinook, and that proposed changes don't go far enough to mitigate that harm. If WDFW can't or won't improve its hatchery practices, then they should shut them down. That is different than saying the hatcheries MUST be shut down. Do you all believe that they only way they can be improved is to be shut down?

Grandpa

I told you I will not answer your posts. If you have a legitimate question, ask an adult to post it for you.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

WT endorsed the trap-ban initiative (I assume that's what you're talking about), as did many other environmental organizations.

Well Ramon if you won't respond to me anymore atleast you publicly admit that WT is and environmental organization.

I can't find a consenting adult to post for me in response to your pout but I'll keep searching. <img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

When you accuse someone of being a liar, or infer it, as you have me in the past, it DOES become a personal attack.

Polling hint:

In a poll the question should be neutral, the answers are where you get to inject the hyperbole.

I remember Vision Hooks Aunty...

I remember how you publicly called me and my friend liars...how you used the same low brow tactics you and grandpa used in this thread (insinuation, accusations of a 'hidden agenda' etc etc ad nauseum) to try to discredit me in that one. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't...

What I continue to think is funny is that you are quite sure you feel like you come out looking like a winner in these conversations when in fact what happens is, the below the belt tactics you use diminish the effectiveness of whatever fair points you have to make in the debate.

Here is a paraphrased example of what I mean....

You accused WT of only working against the hatchery issues, Ramon counters by saying that's unfair, we've worked on this issue here and the other issue there. Instead of revisiting your erroneous statement and acknowledging its inaccuracy, or at least taking a step backward, you ignore the point fairly made.

That WT strikes fear into the hearts of those hell bent on harvest at any cost, including the costs to native fishes, is exactly why they are important to have around. If nothing else when these subjects arise it helps illustrate how weak and pathetic the arguments of hatchery at any cost' proponents really are.

That is not to say that I don't listen with open ears when Smalma and Ramon delineate the differences the between their positions...certainly a conversation of that magnitude would be one that we can all take something from....

Auntie,

Of course you're entitled to express your opinion. I'm just asking for a fairer debate. You don't like WT's position on hatcheries. I suppose we don't like yours, though I don't know that I've heard it exactly. One might gather that you fully support current practices, but I would just be guessing, Whatever, I imagine we've both given up on trying to convince each other. What we can do is engage in honest and fair advocacy to influence the positions of others listening in.

I'll acknowledge that this particular thread is about WT and all it stands for and practices. Fair enough. I gather that you don't like WT very much or at best consider it a necessary evil. It seems your biggest beef is with what you call our focus on hatcheries. We do work very hard on that issue and we always have. I summed up our position thus: If hatcheries can't or won't be improved, they should be shut down. Now, you apparently don't believe that actually is our position. there's not much I can do about that, but I do wish you would at least address whether you think the position as I stated it is reasonable or not, on the off chance I might be telling the truth.

Do you think the hatcheries can be improved without shutting them down? Do you have any ideas? Do you think they need to be improved? Do you think they are not harming PS chinook? Do you think that should matter one way or the other? I'm wishing we could actually debate those issues fairly, rather than who is credible or not. Why not let the arguments themselves demonstrate their own credibility?

I refer you to the web page because I keep having to remind you that we are more or less on the same page on habitat issues, and that WT has a record that can demonstrate that. You can go to our web page and take what's there with as much salt as you like, but it will also give you places to go to confirm whether we have actually done what we claim. We are also (as near as I can tell) on almost the exact same page on commercial and tribal harvest issues. Again, I can't give WT's entire resume here, so I invite you to start an investigation into that claim on our website, and see if you can disprove me, rather than just claim it isn't so.

The NMFS suit cost us a lot of time , energy, and money. I'm sorry if the outcome disappoints you. It disappointed us. But we did work hard and we did win what we believe is a significant step forward, and we don't intend to stop there. I encourage you, RFA, and everybody else to get involved, and comment on the draft EIS when it is released. You can make a difference.

You ask how many timber companies we've sued, how many power companies. We and others won a very important case last year that will force timber companies to leave much wider buffers around floodplains, what's called the channel migration zone, to leave room for rivers to meander and change course. It could have a profound effect on preserving and improving river productivity. We are the lead plaintiffs in a case involving Puget Sound Energy hydro operations in the Skagit basin.

You should also know (if for no other reason than I've said it again and again here) that we don't just sue everybody as a first course of action. We take part in public processes; we sit down face to face with resource agencies and stakeholders to try to negotiate better practices that meet the biological requiremnts of recovering fish populations, and often better compliance with the law. Those processes often result in better conditions that preclude the need to go to court.

We went through many of ther same processes for a considerable amount of time before we filed the hatchery suits. Please note that PS chinook have been listed for four years, and WDFW has been in techincal violation of the ESA for more than two years. Our direct engagement with WDFW over these issues goes as far back as nine years.

You may not like us goring your ox, and you have every right to fight against it, but you should acknowledge that WT's record demonstrates that we have not singled you out. If you research our record, you'll have to acknowledge it.

I do admit that I continue to be frustrated that WT itself is the focus of discussion, rather than our positions and the evidence we cite to support them, (with all due acknowledgement and respect to smalma of course).

By the way. Washington Trout is proud to call itself an environmental organization. We say it again and again. We have never claimed to be a fishing organization, and go to some pains to correct anyone who thinks we are.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Your assuming I'm not a member who IS unhappy with the use of my contributions....

Why the hell do you care? Are you a member, or just like the attention?

I will say that in court, the kind of childish crap that I am objecting to here would simply not be allowed.

So says Ramon.....Childish crap? This ISN"T a court room thank goodness. This is an internet chat bulletin board and we are not under your cross examination and we won't be sentenced to WT prison for pissing you off if we vehemently object to your party line talking points. We are voicing opinions...feelings...we are not destifying.

The 67% or so of us who object seem to be all saying the same thing over and over..We don't agree with your tactics. Your agenda is real narrow in a large complex ESA driven problem.

There you go again making a blatant misrepresentation, I'll leave open the possibility that you are not intentionally lying but that you may have just misinterpreted what you read...something we are all guilty of from time to time.

I have never, nor would I ever, admit to lying on this or any other BB for the simple reason that I have not ever done so. I have been wrong before, if that is what you referring to...and yeah, I've admitted that. Which is more than I can remember you ever having done...

The first stone in this thread was cast in the polled question itself....the only reason I am making my voice heard here is because I've been in Ramon's shoes and faced the exact same kinds of assaults from the exact same characters, those that have been around long enough know that to be true. I think its unfair and I would like it known that if nothing else SOME PEOPLE NOTICE.

Do I really have to go back through each of your posts on this thread to quote the insinuations, mischaracterizations, hyperbole, attacks, question dodging etcetera? My feeling is that they are quite plain for all to see, at least to anyone that has any inkling what the term 'fair debate' means.

My last and final word in this thread? Is it still a 'special interest group' if a full thirty percent (whoops, thirty three percent ) of those polled support WT and their 'agenda'

grandpa, Aunty M brought up the "courtroom" thing in the 23rd post on this thread. I wish people would realize that you can be passionate about an issue and discuss that issue with a person with a different point of view and NOT be demeaning. I've read numerous times on this board about " it's time to throw some hay bails in the water to take care of the nets" and didn't hear one peep about eco- terrorism, WT files a lawsuit and somebody insinuates that their next step could be illegal ? Oh thats right, it was just a retorical question. So grandpa, if WT wins the lawsuit instead of settling out of court and hatcheries close what kind of terrorism are you planning?

36%

40%....

...not bad for a bunch of PETA freaking, eco-terrorists with the hidden agenda of eliminating all fishing for all sportfish everywhere....

Oh..I forgot environmentalists.

...and 'libs'...

..and 'flyfishermen'...

..and lefties...

h2o, you forgot a couple:

"Elitists"

"Tree huggers"

"Anti-Americans"

And dare I say? Oh well, here goes: Democrats!

Where did I put my Birkenstocks...?

I think I left them next to the tofu, which is right by my vegan shopping list....I'll find them after I finish my organic, non-pasteurized juice.

Don't bail, AM......I'm interested in hearing both sides, although it would be nice if the respective sides could state THEIR case without trying to trivialize the other viewpoint.

Fish management is often a complex issue that can't be addressed in a "I'm right, you're wrong" manner. Both sides have valid points....we could just use a little less emotion in the delivery.

Why is it that people think I'm posting about them. Aunty, your always welcome.

OK 30%ers I will admit to you and Ramon that ,even though unintended, I did step over the line bringing up tactics of some other extreme environmental groups making it personal to Ramon. Not my deal at all. I guess I prefer being accused of "baiting" more than accusing someone of illegal acts I am quite sure they do not and will not contemplate or try. Lots of posts on this board piss people off and are taken personally and that will continue I suppose. Labelling people will also continue.

What is so difficult to understand about opposing the methods used by WT>? I don't think that if you oppose the extreme tactics that automatically makes you someone who could care less about wild fish and someone who could care less about the harmful hatchery practices that need to be changed. We're not against buffer zones around streams and habitat restoration. The list of agreement is lots longer than the list of points of disagreement. For every emotive statement I make the 30%ers usually fire back a volley of their own emotive insults or personal attacks. I am not going to go in the closet and pout and refuse to engage. Reasonable debates are much easier face to face than on the chat room.

h20..don't forget the bong

if they shut down all the hatcherys what do they expect us to catch you got it wild fish.

Looks like the Pro WT group has been networking...the 30%ers have grown to 39%....The opposition is at 61% ...Maybe I better work the phones and get the numbers juiced back where they really reflect the group again (70/30)....Oh I know the poll isn't objective and wouldn't hold up in court....

420 points to grandpa for knowing what a bong is and knowing how to use it in the right context.....

I would help raise money to support rational discussion of the facts of natural resource management. I woulld also help raise money to support a forum where divergent points of view on this topic could be aired in an environment where people want to learn from others and perhaps be open to changing their minds. It is my personal belief that WT does not contribute to such a discussion and in fact does distort the truth from time to time. However, they aren't the only ones guilty of this. So I don't see the point of attacking them, but I do see the point of providing a source of reliable, unbiased information on these important issues. Anyone else want to start such an effort??

Aunty, I hate to say it but you're starting to sound like another famous ex member.

I'm not sure if I missed something, but I just can't see where you'd get the idea that your opinion wasn't welcome?

Dredging up year-old threads that are completely irrelevant to this discussion and are meant only to inflame is bad form IMHO, and only serves to weaken your position.

C'mon Aunty, whatever happened, don't take it so personally.

Listen guys we are all passionate about the resource we enjoy and the demeaning name calling is not a good way to go about solving he problem.
I guess my question to WT would be what do you propose to do to replace the hathcery fish that not only provide a catch/kill fishery but also contribute, in a major way, to the regions economy? It's the same question we face over here in Oregon.
I realize that hatchery fish should not intermingle with wild fish but if the state uses some common sense in their policies concerning this then the impact will be minimal.
I'm a late comer into this thread but as an officer in one of he regins top sports anglers advocasy groups (ANWS) we need to address these issues in a reasonable and mature way.
We can work on certain issues with groups that in other issues we might oppose but in the end there has to be a reasonable solution.
Enhancement of wildfish and their habitat along with providing sports anglers the opportunity to keep a fish for consumption should be our common goal.
I know for a fact that AuntyM has done alot of research into proposing some sort of replacement to the indiscriminantly wild fish killing gill nets...so cut her some slack huh?

That's what I'm sayin' Aunty, I musta missed the personal attack?? I'm not attacking you, just tryin' to figure out why you're so mad?

Edit: Ok, now I see what you're talking about.

Aunty-

Another example of how you only see fit to put one side of a story out there.

Why didn't you also post my retraction, where I admitted that I was wrong and that I was guilty of misinterpreting the communications that Bob and I did have....

??

I think it's time for this to stop, it's giving me the hives

Good one Jerry! I with you on that.