There are a lot of things that have been posted here in recent days to
which I would like to respond. That can't be done all at once, and some of
these threads should probably be given more reflection by all of us. But I
would like to make a few observations and comments.

First:
Message text written by A. Cuz to "BP - \"Is this the list with all the ivy
haters?\""
> 
Best I understand, one of the basic tenets of networking is that everyone
gains from the collective knowledge.  I see a lot of knowledgeable
information placed on the table for all to benefit.  I don't really see a
problem with self-promotion.<

These are my feelings as well. This is the spirit in which I think the vast
majority of the discussions here have been conducted.

On the other hand:
Message text written by Ken to "BP - \"Is this the list with all the ivy
haters?\""
>As to the current BP uproar over commercial promotion, I do believe the
line
is crossed, when we do not think to extricate the beam from our own eye
before throwing mixed metaphors. In my opinion it is not good policy or
fair
play to say bad things about the competition.
<
 
I guess this is a reference to my comments in response to John Horton's
posting. I have to take issue with the notion that I have said "bad things"
about the competition. I have tried to keep my comments centered on issues
of formulation practice and materials engineering. My inclination is to get
analytical when presented with a problem situation. If you think I did that
with too much zeal, or with too much appreciation for my competitor's
come-uppance, I apologize for it. 
 
I will state and restate emphatically that I believe BP should not
degenerate into name calling, flinging of half-truths or other
unprofessional conduct with regard to serious issues. We walk a fine line
that should be aimed at substantive and positive wrestling with the issues
that affect the quality of restoration work. We all stand to benefit as an
industry if we can contribute openly with this goal in mind.

Mike Edison