Yo Wizbang... always love your presence and contributions. Wish to add an "old fart's perspective" to the fray... and not from one who was a Cronkite "constituent", so to speak.

Rather than waste typing, I'll provide a link to my original post at FA.

Many thanks... and don't be a stranger!

Mata

Well stated.

"A man never elected by the public, and answerable to no one, could say what he wanted and have it taken as absolute truth by many millions, simply because he was the person saying it." Sounds a little like Limbaugh, huh?

I would love to see some links or quotes from the interviews in which Cronkite "admitted his liberal agenda and that he saw his role as an advocate." Are there any? We don't know, because you didn't provide them, simply asserting as fact what is really an allegation of unethical conduct against a man who is too freaking DEAD to defend himself.

A man never elected by the public

Actually, he was in his own way - by the viewing public.

AT BEST, Walter Cronkite was a well intentioned fool.

NVA and VC killed in action in Tet Offensive: 45,000+

US, Korea, Australia, Suoth Vietnamese: 4,300

A ratio of OVER 10:1

The VC would never again be a credible fighting force. The war could have, would have, and SHOULD have ended right there! But as General Giap was considering surrender, Walter Cronkite went on the air and painted the Tet Offensive as, essentially, a VICTORY for the NVA/VC. He painted a picture of AT BEST a "stalemate" for America...and which "America has no way of breaking". The world press had their cheerleader...and they went to town.

Giap withdrew his forces from the battlefield temporarily...and allowed the world Press, and the agitprop forces within the U.S. to fight the next battle for him. They obliged. To this day most Americans consider a battle in which the ratio of Enemy to American KILLED was 97:3 a DEFEAT for America! (The overall ratio of Enemy to total Allied forces KILLED was 91:9) I stress "KILLED", because the enemy wounded were never known...but were undoubtedly astronomical. And the 45,000 number of enemy KIA is just those that were found...estimates range as high as 50,000 enemy KIA.

Cronkite THOUGHT he was ending the war...he prolonged it, and the results were disastrous!

"Sounds a little like Limbaugh, huh?"

What a stupid comparison. Limbaugh's whole show is his opinion. He is not supposed to be impartial.
Cronkite was supposed to be an impartial reporter. He was not.

Didn't mean for it to be a comparison, Mr Nessman, except in the sense that neither were elected, but both are believed by millions.

But you are right that Limbaugh is a showman and Cronkite was a journalist and those are two different things.

Mr.Henry
Cronkite was accused while he was alive,
many times for many years by many people.
It's been no secret.

"But you are right that Limbaugh is a showman and Cronkite was a journalist and those are two different things."

Yeah, one is honest that he is not impartial and the other is not honest by claiming that he was.

Right.

Accused.

That's somewhat different than "admitting his agenda in interviews," isn't it?

Yeah, Mr Nessman, Cronkite should have been more like Brit Hume. Or Steve Freaking Doocy.

While he was alive Henry.

That's "Mister" Henry to you, Ms Maggie.

(That's a joke.)

Heh ;)

"Yeah, Mr Nessman, Cronkite should have been more like Brit Hume. Or Steve Freaking Doocy."

Cronkite WAS more like Brit Hume; he was just on the other side.
But he, and all other 'journalists' of his time, would not admit to having a bias.

I don't know who Steve Doocy is, freaking or otherwise.

I used to have Fox news and I think Steve Doocy was the comical weatherman. (not funny though)

Cronkite was just a first generation Dan Rather who had a national stage to promote His agenda. Now its over for both. Goodbye

Thanks for this. My dad was killed in vietnam 2 months before I was born in 1967. I have had nothing but bad taste for those who *portrayed* Vietnam the way they did.

The media is far better as Hollywood spinoffs than journalists.

This is about my dad: http://penofjen.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-honor-of-captain-david-p-gibson.html
Jennifer

Jennifer,
Your link doesn't work. I did find your
blog.
Thanks to your father for his service and his
sacrifice. God bless him and you.

Maggie

I am sorry Maggie why it wont work for you. I click on it and it works fine. Thank you for your kind words.
Jennifer

Cronkite was a man with enormous power to shape
public thought on ANY issue. He picked and
chose his points when he exercised this power.
He chose to cut and run in Vietnam. He NEVER
cut and run on a Kennedy, assuring us that
Jack was then what Obama is now. He helped
rehabilitate Teddy during and AFTER the drown-
ing episode. Bobby was his choice, and the
"obvious" choice for America. This elite,
liberal bastard lived his later life on a
"sailing yacht" mocking others on power-boats
who soiled his pristine waters. He would be all for wind-power, except if he could see
them from his balcony.....kinda like Teddy.
For years in America he was UNCHALLENGED.
Couric, Williams, etc. are asking, "What
happened? How come we don't inherit the
mantel?" The answer is, "You gotta tone it
down a bit. PRETEND to be balanced, at least
on alternate Shrove Tuesdays."

On the nightly news he would "chide" a demo-
crat for a "wandering" from ethics and
give a repub both barrels in the face for
littering. Libs always knew he was in their
DoJo. Pubs either never knew, or were afraid
to call him out. Imagine Nixon implying that
Cronkite was a liberal ass-wipe and had
a freakin' agenda!!! He would have been
assassinated with REAL bullets, before he
stepped down from the podium.

#5, Justrand,
Thank you for the figures. I have not heard any criticism of Cronkite at all this weekend. I'm not holding my breath.
Cronkite mirrors the typical liberal we see today --
1. They think they have all the answers
2. They think that if they "help" things will improve and
3. They are sure that the average person in America is rather a dolt.

We should also remember that Walter Cronkite was an advocate of a world government.

Bruce Henry, Try the Larry King interview which was just re broadcast which cronkite "admits" he is a liberal! in his own words.

Wait, Mr Burns....

Are you saying that CNN allowed the mask to slip? That the worldwide Soros-led Liberal Media Conspiracy was finally exposed on Larry King? Wow.

As for the legumes here claiming that Cronkite "lied about Tet", look at the video again. In it, Cronkite clearly states he's about to express an opinion, and then talks about Vietnam as a whole. He never says that Tet was a "military defeat," but that the war itself is a quagmire.

At least that's my recollection. I was 13 years old when I first saw it, and have seen tapes of it since. I remember vividly several other 1968 moments from history, such as the RFK and MLK assassinations, and the Democratic convention.

For those asking about Cronkite's liberal bent here is one source - http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite/welcome.asp#Promoting%20Liberalism - from the Media Research Center.

As someone who lives near Austin and had the opportunity several times to hear him at various events I can personally attest to Uncle Walter's radical liberalism; it came out in every venue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdOb_183d1o

After that, Cronkite's interest in Vietnam faded rather quickly. He never felt the need to report nightly with the same fervent assertiveness "the bloody experience" that continued and worsened when millions died when we abandoned the people of Vietnam and left them to be slaughtered by those we fought. To him, war was evil and must be stopped regardless of the outcome. All the better if one has the power to direct attention to other matters and ignore the result.

Walter Duranty just went ahead and flat out told lies. DJ is right - Cronkite was not objective. He was much more insidious in his appeal to emotion.

All the same, privately, he was still a man with a family and friends who will miss him. My sympathies for their loss in that regard. But I won't whitewash his public role.

Bruce, you always prove the liberal agenda. First you started out saying that we were unfairly picking on him cause he's dead. Then you said Cronkite did not say what he said, then you state that Cronkite said it but preficed it with an opinion.

The point of the post was Cronkite using his position and trust given to him to further an agenda to the left, but you must have missed it. Surprise. ww

Mr. Henry, you were 13 at the time. Skateboards, homework, suntan lotion and Playboy magazine. You still rode a bicycle as your primary transportation.

The News was something your parents watched.

No insult intended, but you didn't live Vietnam; you watched it.

Walley Cronkite the best propeganda minister the vietcong could afford

Bruce, if Bobdog is correct, looks like you have been talking out your neck. So, you have been writing like you have some expertise when you actually know nothing first hand. We have been discussing facts and you, opinions. Go sit in a corner and STFU.

I never liked him. I remember being nine years young and convinced that what he said on the national news was treason, and that he was helping to get my sister's friends,who were serving the country honorably in Viet Nam killed. He was a jerk and he should have been kicked out of the news business then.I never forgave him and I hope he and Jane Fonda both burn in eternity.

Walter Cronkite was above all a realist. The United States dropped 6,727,084 tons of bombs in the IndoChina War, compared to a total of 2,700,000 tons in Europe in WWII for the Allied forces, or 646,400 tons in the Pacific in WWII for the Allied forces, yet this was nowhere close to ending the war in IndoChina. And close to 700,000 American troops in Vietnam was nowhere near enough to win that small war either. There probably needed to be millions more U.S. troops to maintain any sense of order. The Peace With Honor deal that President Nixon struck was about the only way out for a war that was leading to massive inflation at home and cost vast amounts of tax dollars with no good outcome. I was a Nixon supporter back then you know. I worked for him as a 17 year old youth worker and was part of the six founders of the Multnomah County effort on his behalf. Nixon wanted to end that war that wasn't working as well.

Today, Vietnam might be a Communist state, but it's also friendly to the United States and a big trade partner. The only Communist states left in the world are Cuba and North Korea on the poverty side, and China and Vietnam on the prosperity and trade side. Heck, I sell some products made in Vietnam for example. What's the point of war anyway? Maybe it delayed for few years Nike making shoes in that country, otherwise it didn't achieve very much.

Indeed Hoosan, what is the use of war.
Certainly not to fight for someone like you.
Your human value is nil so what's the use
of fighting to keep you safe, and free.
I'll let my husband know after the fact.

Maggie, my family has a long military history. My father was stationed at a POW camp in cold Korea in 1950 when the South was 90% overrun by Chinese Communist soldiers and Communist bayonet charges were common. His close relative, Jack, was part of an Army Air Force WWII ground crew cut up by an aircraft propeller in a ground aircraft accident. My grandfather's sister's only son was killed when a Kamikaze pilot crashed his plane into his gun turret on the Navy ship in WWII. My dad's brother suffered third degree burns in an electrical accident in the torpedo room on a nuclear sub during the Cuban missile crisis, risking his own life so that the torpedoes wouldn't explode blowing up the sub and killing the crew. My grandfather was a captain of a huge merchant ship, the Ipswich, and was taken prisoner and tortured by the Japanese. My dad's other brother was in the Marine Corps. I had my draft card for Vietnam, but wasn't called up as President Nixon halted further callups into 1973, otherwise I would have served in Vietnam myself. Maybe my family knows something about sacrifice for war. They've paid a high price in blood for freedom.

But Vietnam was a different sort of conflict. It was a civil war in a country that needed to find their own solution. And no amount of American intervention, aid, bombs or bloodshed sacrifice seemed to be able to change that outcome of Vietnamese arriving at their own solution because nationalism spirits ran so high. President Nixon who I worked for even gave up the notion that a military solution could resolve that sort of war using conventional arms. And the U.S. didn't want to open up a nuclear conflict with either Russia or China at the time. So Nixon went for the best political solution that he could, which was far better than what George McGovern had to offer.

You can hurl around your ignorant insults, Maggie, But the men in my family have paid a very high price in blood to defend this country. I can't think of any stronger act of patriotism than that.

To Professor/Field Marshal Zeldorf Von Ragshaft the Third:

I was zero when World War Two was fought, but I still have an opinion and some knowledge about what happened.

Your comment # 31 is in the running for the stupidest thing you've written on Wizbang all weekend so far. But then again, there's quite a selection to choose from. Thanks for playing!

I was going to ask you about Neville Chamberlain at Munich, but, hell, you didn't live the War in Europe, you only watched. So you couldn't possibly have a valid opinion, right? Damn, there are so few 90 year olds to ask!

Wee Willie:

No, I said what I wrote, not what you SAY I wrote. It's not my fault you can't follow simple English sentences. It was a short post, with all short words. Try again.

Really I should have given credit to bobdog for General Von Zeldorf's # 31. All the General did was agree with a profoundly ridiculous comment from him.

Hoosan,
You hurl insults on a regular basis on Wizbang
by assuming that conservatives are a bunch of
rubes you can post to in a condescending manner.
As to the service and sacrifices your family
may have made for our country, if they
did so many thanks, and if you're making it
up, shame on you.

So... Walter Cronkite was a despot? Like Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler? I see. You people are so fun to point and laugh at these days. You are truly spinning out of control.

Save this article for when El Rushbo has his cheeseburger coronary or OD's on Vicodan. What a sweet day that will be.

actually, Ryan, I agree with you...and disagree with the title of the thread. Cronkite was NOT a "Despot".

Cronkite was an ENABLER of Despots...like Goebbles was an enabler of Hitler.

Cronkite's Tet Offensive lies comdemned South Vietnam, and later Cambodia to millions of deaths and many years of suffering.

Goebbles lies condemned the world to World War II (though yes, Chamberlain ceratinly helped). Granted, Goebbles KNEW what he was doing and Cronkite was just a "useful idiot"...though the distinction may be lost on the dead.

p.s. to Paul Hooson...Nike makes their shoes with SLAVE Vietnamese labor.

One thing liberal's like Bruce put forward is they think we do not know the facts, so they present what they think are facts, and when we shoot it down, it is because we are ignorant and unable to comprehend. Quite a lot of narcissism running through their camp. ww

But Vietnam was a different sort of conflict. It was a civil war in a country that needed to find their own solution. And no amount of American intervention, aid, bombs or bloodshed sacrifice seemed to be able to change that outcome of Vietnamese arriving at their own solution because nationalism spirits ran so high.

North Vietnam could have been easily defeated militarily by a simple strategy, which is to build-up a large ground force is the south while bombing the north into oblivion, and then launching a ground invasion of the north. The only reason that didn't happen in Vietnam was the threat of China openly coming into the war to defend North Vietnam. It wasn't the nationalism spirits or the fighting skills of the NVA that won the war for them, it was the lack of courage by U.S. Presidents to either face down China or face the political suicide of pulling out. It's best summed up by the old colloquial expression to "shit or get off the pot"

That indecisiveness cost 10s of thousands of American's their lives and a lot more Vietnamese their lives. That's why personal courage and self-sacrifice are high on my list of qualifications for any presidential candidate. In 2008 it was McCain who had demonstrated those qualities in his life.

I think you've got it backwards.

When Walter Cronkite expressed his opinion on the war and turned public opinion, Johnson, who had lost his stomach for the war declined to run for reelection. As a result, Nixon was elected, and vigorously prosecuted the war.

No Cronkite opinion, no President Nixon.

Well, Wet Willie, in the last couple of days I've heard here that South Vietnam was a "free" country with an "elected" government.
Those aren't facts.
Then I heard that "the war was fought in the South," despite the fact that Johnson, and then Nixon, bombed the bejesus out of North Vietnam for years. Where was famed former POW and also former Prisoner Of War John McCain shot down again? Not to mention invading Cambodia, etc.
Cronkite was alleged here to have "declared Tet an American defeat." Not so. He did declare, shortly after Tet, that IN HIS OPINION, the War was unwinnable.
Please don't talk to me about who knows the facts, Wee One.

Whew! Things are getting just a little testy in these comments. Certainly I'm no Vietnam historian or authority on the war, but I am old enough to remember some of the coverage. Some of the comments here just don't square with things I remember. True, more ordinance (bombs) was dropped in Vietnam than was dropped in the entire European campaign, and I can still visualize video of those B-52s raining bombs down, as the commentator would express it, on "suspected Viet Cong trails". In short, bombing the shit of the jungle not knowing if they were hitting anything or not. The "massive" bombing authorized by Nixon in the north,in Laos and Cambodia, was intended to bring the N.Vietnamese to the negotiation table. As I pointed out on a previous thread, Johnson (administration) was worried that overwhelming force, the kind that would actually be necessary to defeat the north and win the war militarily, could bring the Chinese into the war with their massive army. Hello Korea! The really BIG LIE to come out of the Vietnam war was Johnson's "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution". And what does he do after getting the U.S mired in an unwinnable war? Why he cuts and runs, leaving someone else to clean up the mess. The way some of you out there are demeaning Walter Cronkite, well you should be ashamed of yourselves.

So all of this conversation about how many bombs were dropped in Viet Nam would have been moot had Cronkite not lied about Tet. Inspite of the lunacy of Bruce the bozo, records exist showing Gen. Giap planned to end the war. That is not speculation Bruce. It is taken from the memoirs of the General. I was never a General, Bruce, I was a Sp-4. What were you? I know what you are but what were you? Why do you infest this site?

Bruce Henry
"I would love to see some links or quotes from the interviews in which Cronkite "admitted his liberal agenda and that he saw his role as an advocate." "

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2009/07/cronkite-on-the-accusation-tha.php

In a 2003 interview Richard Zoglin of Time Magazine asked Walter Cronkite: "You have basically come out and said you're a liberal. How do you respond when critics say, 'Aha, I know reporters were liberal, and this is why the media is biased?' "

To which Cronkite responded: "I do not consider a liberal necessarily to be a leftist. A liberal to me is one who--and it suits some of the dictionary definitions--is unbeholden to any specific belief or party or group or person, but makes up his or her mind on the basis of the facts and the presentation of those facts at the time. That defines what I am. I have never voted a party line. I vote on the individual and the issues."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-cronkite-broadcaster-who-became-americas-conscience-as-well-as-the-countrys-favourite-uncle-1753042.html

In an interview with Variety magazine, he admitted the offence, defining a liberal as "one who is not bound by doctrine or committed to a point of view in advance."

http://www.playboy.com/articles/walter-cronkite-interview/index.html?page=2

PLAYBOY: The opinions you've just expressed are stronger than any you've ever delivered on the air about this issue--which seems to reflect your views about the importance of remaining an objective reporter. Yet you departed from that policy when you returned from a visit to Vietnam in 1968 and advocated an early negotiated peace in a series of editorials at the end of your nightly newscast. Are you glad you did it?
CRONKITE: Glad? I'm not sure. In a lot of people's minds, it put me on a side, categorized me in part of the political spectrum. And I think that's unfortunate. It's a question in my mind now, looking back, weighing the long-term disadvantages with the short-term benefits. When I went over there, I didn't know what I was going to report back, actually. I didn't go over to do a hatchet job. I didn't go over to be anti-Vietnam, to be against American policy. I was leaning that way; I had been very disturbed ever since the '65 build-up. I was particularly disturbed over the lack of candor of the Administration with the American public, about the constant misleading statements as to the prospect of victory--the light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel stuff. I thought--and I still think--that was the most heinous part of the whole Vietnam adventure. I had also been disturbed about the vast overkill, about what we were doing to the people of Vietnam.

But even then, I was still living with my old feeling of sympathy for the original commitment, in line with Kennedy's promise that "we shall support any friend to assure the success of liberty." Nobody was kidding himself about the nature of the South Vietnamese regime, but we thought we were trying to create conditions that would promote the growth of democracy, give them a right to self-determination. So I went out in '68 still basically believing in our policy but increasingly disenchanted with what we had actually been doing over there ever since '65. Then, after the Tet offensive, Johnson and Westmoreland and McNamara were saying we had won a great victory--you know, "Now we've got them; this was their last great effort." And it was clearly untrue. That was what broke my back. That's why I felt I finally had to speak out and advocate a negotiated peace.

As usual Bruce Henry you are on the wrong side.

the above was found with 5 minutes of googling.

Of course you wont admit you are wrong.

BTW for all the soldiers who have given their lives so you can spew your leftist crap and dishonor their memory by squawking about your tax dollars going to enhance their resumes.

SCREW YOU.

More about "uncle Walter"

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Walter_Cronkite
In his column, he has repeatedly condemned President George W. Bush and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 1998, he supported President Bill Clinton during the impeachment trial. He has also been a proponent of world government, writing fundraising letters for the World Federalist Association (now Citizens for Global Solutions). In accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at the ceremony at the United Nations, Cronkite said :

It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.

...
In a 2006 TV interview with Nick Clooney, Cronkite confirmed:

"I choked up, I really had a little trouble...my eyes got a little wet...[what Kennedy had represented] was just all lost to us. Fortunately, I grabbed hold before I was actually [crying]."
In a 2003 CBS special commemorating the 40th anniversary of the assassination, Cronkite said that he was standing at the United Press wire machine when the bulletin broke and was clamoring to get on the air as fast as was possible. Upon having the death confirmed to him, he said:
And when you finally had to say it's official, the President is dead...pretty tough words in a situation like that. And they were, um, hard to come by.

Funny, I dont think that if Bush had been assasinated that Jennings, or the other talking heads of todays news would feel choked up like that to talk about it. Now if something happened to Obama you would see a cryfest for a year.

"Hoosan,
You hurl insults on a regular basis on Wizbang
by assuming that conservatives are a bunch of
rubes you can post to in a condescending manner."

That is a blatant lie, magee. I dare you to give one example of Paul Hooson "hurling insults" here. But you won't. Instead you'll tell me how I hurl insults. Well guess what, magy, I do. And so do you. But Paul doesn't. And you owe him an apology. But you won't apologize. I don't know how you became such a bitter, mean-spirited person, maggii, but I pity you. The least you could do is quit intentionally misspelling his name. But you won't.

Your human value is nil so what's the use
of fighting to keep you safe, and free.

This is your comment moderator, Kevin?

Nice work.

Mantis,
What is your point?

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

What's that, maggee, no examples of Hooson "hurling insults on a regular basis on Wizbang?"

Yeah, didn't think so. Your human value is nil.

No mantis, that's your status around here.

max,
You've been banned once. One more time using
another ip address and each one of them will
have a formal complaint filed agsinst you.

Bruce Henry

Ref Post 3

Go here

http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite/welcome.asp

BTW for all the soldiers who have given their lives so you can spew your leftist crap and dishonor their memory by squawking about your tax dollars going to enhance their resumes.

SCREW YOU.

cronkite was long forgotten before he died...nobody listened to that dopey old fart...and when he is dust nobody will remember him...his legacy is nothing....

Well, Mr Retired Military/Self Appointed Spokesman For The Fallen:

I would admit I was wrong if even ONE of your google cites proved that to be the case. I realize your reading comprehension skills are at about the same level as your emotional maturity level, but please be specific and show me a quote where Cronkite "admits his liberal agenda."

Does he admit to BEING a liberal? Yes, as HE defines liberal. Does he admit to trying to use his anchor position to advance an agenda? No. Does he admit to "seeing his role as an advocate?" No.

And again, Big Man, you're brave enough to bravely type "SCREW YOU" all in caps on the Internet, but you would never dare say it to my face. Why? Because you're a pussy, a blowhard, and a fake. I don't believe you really ARE retired from the US military. I don't think the military would take somebody who can't read a simple English sentence and know what it means. I think you're in the sixth grade and think your Nam vet grandpa is really cool.

Any retarded fool who repeatedly types "SCREW YOU" all in caps after every comment, months after being offended in the first place, is a crybaby, a coward, and a wannabe tough guy.

And you were offended, by the way, because of your lack of reading comprehension skills. You, sir, are a dumbass.

And, no, I'm not going to drive to Bumfuckegypt, TX, to let you prove you're not. You know where I live, sissy. If you want to prove you're man enough, come say it to my face.

Is that clear?

Mr.Henry,
It's one thing for you two to 'f' bomb each
other, it's something a bit different to being
slinging threats at each other on Wizbang.
If you two want to have at it, take it
elsewhere.

I'm still chuckling about what a dumbass you are, RM. Posting google cites that prove the OPPOSITE of what you think they say. What are you, some kind of wierd dyslexic?

Hey, he started it!

Don't think I've used any f-bombs. Sorry about the salty language.

But while you're scolding people, Maggie, can you make this idiot stop "shouting" "SCREW YOU" at me after anything and everything I say? I promise I'll go back to being civil but smart-aleck if he'll stop that crap.

Mr.Henry,
What's weird about dyslexia? Einstein
was dyslexic. What does that make you?

Mr.Henry,
I don't care who started what. The slurs and
slings aren't what this is about.
When talking about threats, the both of
you, on Wizbang, you are going too far.
This message is for both of you.

The "he started it" thing was a joke.

I apologise, Maggie, and I appreciate you making it clear you were talking to both of us.

I'll try to be more civil in the future.

And by "weird dyslexic" I meant that he seems to have a weird form of dyslexia, one that makes him confused about whole sentences, not just letters. No insult to actual dyslexics was intended.

Apology accepted Bruce.

Thanks.
Maggie