Your second comment reads as if Jim had endorsed your comment about professionalism. You knew he hadn't, the comment you were responding to didn't suggest he would do, and you knew he wasn't around to contradict you. That's why I called it dishonest.

As for people not being able to handle your approach, it's more that your approach tends to disqualify your argument. More precisely, it tends to *obscure* your argument. I know that what you disagree with Jim Carroll about isn't the compulsory professionalisation of folk music, because I know he doesn't advocate that. So why pretend it is?