<HTML>It isn't misinformation Sandy - In my first message I linked to your posts. There are more - but I figured that you would already be familiar with them, having written them yourself :-) In my second message I proffered my opinion of the situation - that wasn't even information so can't be misinformation :-)
The record does speak for itself - all your posts are available to anyone who cares to do a search on your name. When you asked Kat to arbitrate she did exactly that, and didn't find anything that would back your complaint.
I guess you must mean some time ago at the IAB site, I haven't even read it for ages - but I do recall defending 'congratulations' messages on the GH MB in a discussion with Greg Reeder, and also being one of those defending Anthony's charactor against I believe IAB? I could be wrong.
I have read all the debate on the geopolymer theory, and don't take this the wrong way, but especially the debate on the GH MB that I've previously posted to you - where Jameske discussed it with Martin and Anthony in particular. I found it informative and I'm always happy to learn. I do get fed up with your attitude when debating, because I concur with Mikey's assessment - you play the man not the ball - and that's not informative, just unpleasant.
It is you making the accusations here Sandy - it was a level playing field for you right up until you posted your first message. But I don't see anyone here backing you - or backing your assessment of the debate and it isn't because we all love Anthony or because there is a conspiracy against the geopolymer theory (and I don't even know what Anthony's machine is) - it is because of the way you have conducted yourself. The judgements that people have made have been from reading your messages and nothing else.
I think that this is a silly discussion and going nowhere. I posted your first messages in reply to the post where you claimed that you have tried to be pleasant but have been worn down by Anthony's behaviour - or words to that affect - because that isn't fair - it was the other way round, and your first messages are evidence of that.
End of conversation - I look forward to reading your future responses to questions posed on the geopolymer theory.
Claire</HTML>