1
I think I've figured out the root of most our disconnects, Doc.
Your article was responding to stuff you're reading that I'm not. (I've given up on LL and USSM and don't even lurk there any more). I read most of MC, but hadn't seen the specific anti-Griffey posts you were harping on.
On the other side - 'some' of my responses are not direct responses to ONLY what you posted - but from what I'm getting (tone-wise) at MC. If your tone matches that of what I'm reading at MC, I'm (unfairly) painting your positions with a wider paintbrush. It's not (specifically) that I'm not failing to see the details of your post -- but that I'm also responding to other net rhetoric. I'll try to do a better job of indicating such in the future.