"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
soundhaspriority wrote:
[snip]

If SHP really was Richard Graham what you say might have some legitimacy
but since I beleive he is not I see no problem with him talking about the
cream, foil, whatever.

But then the issue is not whether we disagree on ethics; it is about who we
think "soundhaspriority" is. I'm sorry, but I personally find my
investigation more convincing (to me) than yours.

There are many reasons a person may choose to be anonymous on usenet; good,
bad, or indifferent. In this case, I believe that Richard Graham, posting as
"soundhaspriority", is attempting to do a bad thing.

All the best,
Bob