PJF ... /* but last time I checked I was able to constructively slate what they do */ The 'intent' behind what the speaker or author has said or written, or the perceived intent by the audience, often determines whether the subject matter at hand is being viewed as constructive criticism or a public trashing. Granted, there is a very fine line between that which is constructive and that which is not. I support that which is constructive, a good debate about a matter is always healthy and keeps the mind from getting too locked into stale ways. However, what sometimes occurs is that the problem is between what the communicator intended and what the listener or reader perceived. The speaker may intend their words to be positive or constructive criticism but the listener may perceive these words as negative criticism. When in doubt, a communicator will do will to remember that 'descretion is the better part of valor'. If a person is unsure how their words, oral or written will be perceived it is usually better to say or write nothing at all. This is a lesson that I will do well to remember as well. :) I have reread this thread again, for the third time and I find it difficult to see it as anything else but a public trashing. Perhaps my perception is skewed in this matter or perhaps it has been skewed by a repeating of history.