"To have you allied with Glorieux is somewhat ironic given the tenuous, sometimes tempestuous connection between you two way back when..."

Funny Pete.....I was thinking this the other day. But, it wasn't so much that we were really at odds, though the choice of language could have made it seem so, it was that there was a difference in philosophy on how to approach matters. So to put a fine point on it, it was not the name behind the message that was the issue, it was always the message. So, do not consider my responses as allying with an individual but with the individuals idea. Thus I don't ally so to speak with G. but with his ideas. So if an individual is attacked I will respond in order to place the emphasis back where it belongs which is on the idea that was put forward. If an individual has an idea that I agree or disagree with then I discuss that. It is true that in the past I have accused folks of being bashers having assumed that their posts were efforts to fool people, but largely now my interest lies in simply debating the message behind the words regardless of the name attached to them.

If my language appears to be vague or ambiguous it is likely because I see few situations where there is certainty but merely possibility. For me most situations require flexibility and the ability to quickly change ones view in order to match the shifts in the market. I would have no problem explaining my thinking if I were asked to explain further why I think a certain way.