Packard 53: If you believe that you can blithely state that what Stuart Blond wrote in his article in the Cormorant was non factual and a self-serving exercise designed to show him, his wife and his employer in favorable light, then you open yourself to critical analysis as well. I did not say, precisely, that you were either juvenile or illiterate. What I did say, and meant, was that what you wrote was childishly self-centered and poorly presented. You clearly intended to harm Stuart's image and enhance your own. I must say that there seems to be far more emphasis on your contribution to this story (for all I know, correctly so), than memorializing your late friend. Please do not suggest that your comments about Stuart Blond were innocent and intended no harm. The observable reality is quite the contrary. Stuart has been a dedicated and fair contributor to the Packard periodical experience and a friend of the hobby for years and I do not feel that I can sit idly by while you savage him. I have no desire to engage in any contest, of any nature with you, as to do so will help this thread to become the "Tar baby" of the Forum. I visit here to share information, not to pick every conceivable nit in the product of another medium.