> I wish Allen had been more specific about whatever he took issue
> with in my post (but I'm sure he will be).
<snip>
> I choose to take his other comments either as a compliment to my
> writing abilities rather than an insult to my beehives or as
> something directed to postings in general :)
<snip>
 
Good thing Stan has a positive mindset, or I'd be getting scorched
here :0
 
I guess this illustrates how easy it is to be misunderstood on the
net.  I spent quite a bit of time writing that piece, and it still
is not very clear, I guess :(
 
I actually did not refer to Stan's response -- or even mean to, but
on ruminating, I suspect that I may have inadvertantly CCd him with
my post.  (Damn that Pegasus mail program anyhow! It's gotten me into
hot water more than once).
 
*** Of course, I was not trying to impugn my good friend's wisdom
and motives ***  What had gotten me thinking was that *an inquirer*
did not state his location.
 
I guess that I -- and others -- have been deeply disturbed and a bit
saddened by 'A Pitiful Sight' because we saw it coming far off and
tried to sound a warning.
 
What I really was trying to say was this: "Don't be in too big a
hurry to *believe* anything you read on the 'net".
 
*** THAT APPLIES TO MY POSTS AS MUCH AS ANY!!!  ***
 
Net talk tends to off the cuff, from the hip, and the sources are
often not subject to careful editing, peer review or sober second
thought.  (Some bee periodicals are somewhat indescriminate in what
they publish too, but after a while we get to know which ones).
 
Anyone can put up a web page for a few dollars, aqnd bvery little
commitment.  I know, I've done it.
 
As they always say when giving advice, or should anyways: YMMV.
 
FWIW
 
Your friend :)
 
Allen