This is fascinating. In his post entitled "Ok, I was hoping to ignore your blatant baiting, but you are escalating it so here is my simple reply..." R. L. says -

"I promised Robert not to post anything in reference to the dispute, or the person involved in the dispute and have asked for clarification if that is sufficient. I have sent several email inquiries to Robert and not received a reply in quite a few days."

Now, it seems to me that operating on what Robert DID NOT say, using that as an excuse to avoid what Robert DID say subverts the process the Zone and Robert when through on this matter. Hard to imagine. "I offered, he DIDN'T REJECT the offer, meaning he must have accepted."

Those of us not engaged in, or privy to, the back-channel finagling had no idea as to the one-sided negotiations.

However, be that as it may, calling what Lindy and/or I did "blatant baiting" seems to be extreme and inaccurate. Typical, though.

And, as I said in a post to R. L. which hasn't had a reply (yet), score one for Cowing. (A person I don't know and haven't read so am not in on the disputes.)

And, I have to say, as one who is not particularly serene himself at times, that had Lindy done what R. L. has done, with history as a guide the attack would have been vicious, personal, wide-ranging and destructive.

Arf