Reef Fish wrote:

> So, I agree with your disagreement ONLY under a different premise --
> that only ill-informed statements based on EXPERIENCE are worth
> discussing.  Not contrived BS, troll, or conjectures from a total
> absence of experience.

I am comfortable with this even though my position remains a bit different.
I still find usefulness even in the troll, even in the most uninformed
speculation.  As I think you understand, it's not the out of the blue
speculation that is of value, it's the thought, discussion and more thought
that so often follows.  Each of us decides what to read, when to respond,
what to say.  Any waste of time and/or brain usage and bandwidth is our our
choice and not that of the original speculator/troller.  We chose whether to
even attempt to make the clueless post a springboard for more valid
information and, occasionally, we find a bit of truth in even the wildest
speculation that adds to or fuels improvement in our personal knowledge.
Value is in the eyes of the reader.   That I may find value where you do not
or visa versa is not a problem, let alone, something that either of us needs
to or should change.  Such variation is, itself, of value.

Last night, when it was late and my emotions appear to have been primed, I
responded to one of your posts in this same thread with more vitrol than the
situation warranted.  You made me mad and I responded accordingly and
inappropriately.  As soon as I finish this post, I'm going to post an
appology for that post.  I'm taking this opportunity to apologize in
advance.

Lee