I have 'defended' nothing or no-one in particular during this current exchange, Jim; apart from myself over my attitude to certain terminology whose usage you accused me of being 'aware' of, to which I demonstrated that I had previously shown that I was 'aware' of nothing of the sort, but on the contrary disagreed basically with its assumptions; a proposition to which, at the time, you expressed agreement ~~ & it was, so, agreement, Don; however enthusiastic or otherwise, and however hedged about, it may have been. There was, after all, no compulsion on Jim to have contributed to that thread at all, was there? Yet he did so, in terms of at least qualified assent. I do not think either of you can deny that assertion.

~M~