I'm sorry if you felt my comments were harsh, Joe. Any harshness was intended for Dean, not you. There were a couple of posts that, left unanswered, could have been construed by others unaware of the details as an endorsement of Dean. I wanted to make it clear for those that are new or missed the other exchanges what the history was. Following on John's comments, your post was relatively innocent. John's motives, on the other hand, are highly suspect.