Well....erm...uhm...*I* speak for me.

And some folks, who remember what I said, sometimes repeat it.

Unlike those who simply ignore it, or distort it.

What gets me is when somebody says, "Well, who are YOU to post here to
defend him?" Well, who are YOU to post here and attack? Everybody's an
equal when it comes to speaking up. If one can make someone else's
business your own enough to attack, how is that different from making
someone else's business one's own enough to defend? This is absolutely
illogical, and can only, I assume, proceed from a desire to have me respond
personally to them. Which I have absolutely no intention, or desire, to
do. You will note the very important sentence that comes up frequently:
"If what I wrote wasn't important, then why all these reactions?"

That's the key, and it's very sad. To respond directly, WHATEVER you
might say, creates the sense that they are important. And they LIKE that.
The more furor, the more angry messages get provoked, the more important
they feel. If you respond directly, you're doing *exactly* what they
want you to do, and feeding the fire, and soon the conversation becomes
about the conversation, rather than the substance that provoked it, and it
spirals off and away into madness.

They are petty, and venal, and I have absolutely nothing to say to
them. If others choose to talk to them, well, why should they complain,
since it's that very action that makes them feel important? It's a logical
contradiction.

But then, logic has *nothing* to do with this.

jms