Just one response, because as I have stated here and elsewhere, I will not not get into public rows with you, Dick, but let's just set a few facts straight.....

At no point have I stated that Ian Anderson was responsible for the review.
... and where did anyone suggest that you stated this?

I can dedicate comments to who I like, just as reviewers can write what they like, its called freedom of speech, so Matt and Vic,I am exercising my right to say what I like, just as reviewers exercise their pens on other peoples musical careers
... and where is anyone denying your right of freedom of speech?

but now with you tube, the music can be presented to the public,and the public can make their own judgements on the music.
Matt, I am not banging on about froots, I am commenting on a review in Folk Roots, a different publication., which again was different from Southern Rag
Vic, please get your facts right, this has nothing to do with froots I think you will find that most of the reviews you are talking about were in southern rag or folk roots, which is not froots, THAT REVIEW APPEARED IN FOLK ROOTS.
You are 100% correct, Dick, if a tad on the pedantic side. The magazines, Southern Rag, Folk Roots and fRoots have all been edited by the same person (amazingly) in a period that now covers more than a half of his life. The three magazines have had the same contiguous numbering system:-
Issues 1 - 24 were called Southern Rag.... then because Ian wanted to give the magazine a national basis, he changed the name.
Issues 25 - 207 were called Folk Roots.... then when we were entering the digital age the site names www.folkroots.com www.folkroots.co.uk etc.etc. were registered by a prominent folk singer and musician, now deceased, in the hope of selling the domain names to Ian at a vast profit. This was one of the reasons that the name was changed again.
Issues 208 - 337, the present, the magazine has been called fRoots.
In conversations on the folk scene, "Folk Roots" and "fRoots" are largely taken as synonomous as no one exactly remembers when the change took place, but in making this common error, I have clearly caused great offence, so I can do nothing but offer my most humble apologies. Any more discussion of this matter between us by PM only.