OK Dic: my tone might have been a bit wanting, and I genuinely do regret if you were offended; but I still can't see why you took such vehement objection to the expression of a perfectly tenable [even if not universally agreed with, see Jim's comment] opinion on a song whose lyric was requested by the OP 9 [count them: NINE!] years ago, and denounced my having ventured to do so in such immoderate terms. As the point of my "silly" comments was, it is not universally the case that these threads stick tenaciously and unwaveringly to their original theme and never stray therefrom into related matters, such as evaluation or analogues or any such relevant questions. I honestly couldn't see what I had written to provoke such an out·of·bed·the·wrong·side response from you; and if my replies struck you as 'silly', it was because I was trying to keep the tone reasonably light in the face of, what struck me as, your peculiarly heavy·toned denunciations. I note you have separately started an anti-critic thread: to which I shall not contribute as my bona-fides might be questioned as I obviously couldn't approach it objectively. But I shall read it and I hope learn from it; and I wish it - and you - well. But I can't see that critic is such a shameful trade as to disqualify one from expressing an opinion even when one is not being paid or employed to do so. That strikes me as {if such a term exists} a jobist attitude...

Best {unhypercritical} regards   Michael