ahem ok, what I see and what I don't see constitutes a whole lot. First, what I see. I see an apology to the merchants. It's back handed, but present, and I know ya'll well enough to say ok, you've apologized as best you can. So you know what I mean by back handed: "Unfortunately, written communication is often misinterpreted because it comes with no body language, facial expressions, or vocal cues to give further understanding of the intended delivery of the message. For example, a factual response may appear to some readers to be condescending when it was never intended that way. Other readers may read that same message and simply see the information provided. The tone and the demeanor of my sentences is intended to remain factual so it will be possible to work through the issue with you. There was nothing more intended." While I may be over-educated, I am also a person who uses words for exactly the opposite purposes you describe. Fiction and non-ficition alike use words to convey emotion, sentiment, feeling, and more. Use of this relatively stock phrase is simplistic and ineffective in a situation where you are dealing with a pissed off crazy woman. Please avoid it in the future. For my part, your apology is accepted, and is enough to forestall further action on this issue for the present. I cannot, however, stress strongly enough that the administrative team here does need to get some sort of sensitivity training. It's become a cliche because there is value in it. "If ANY term is used as an attack on a member, it would not be allowed. The key here is the difference in the intended use. We are in fact talking about the name of a product, not an attack directed at a member. If "Juggs" or any other name, were used as part of an attack directed towards a member that would be a different set of circumstances entirely and would not be allowed." This is an acceptable response. It fulfills the other measure. "As for the number of merchants complaining, 17 merchants is a few when compared to the total number of merchants. Is it being dismissive when we read a complaint, investigate a complaint, and make a decision based upon the results of the investigation?" While 17 may be a few, standard social statistics will indicate, based on Phillip's Rule, that those 17 will each speak for a percentage that will not speak out for fear of this sort of thing happening. I'm willing to set a conservative estimate of 5 for each. That would be less than 100 -- still a comparative insignificant number of merchants as a whole, but decidedly not when it comes to the number of active</> merchants. And No, it is not dismissive to invesitgate. However, you've conveniently glosses over the fact that your investigation was ineffective at actually obtaining a fairly decent record of those who might find it offensive. You glossed pretty good over the poitns I raised, and I'll allow it. But you insulted me. I will remember. Thank you for you apologies, your efforts to rectify this matter, and your time to do so. Elle Talent yclept ynsaen

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)