As the person who sparked the row in this thread, I feel compelled to speak up at this point - and to say that I am feeling rather uncomfortable at the present state of affairs.
It is, as Jon points out, interesting that Peter's posts began to disappear a while ago. I noticed it too - a process which seemed to start with the oldest first and then work forwards in time to the most recent. In fact, he was still posting on some topics as these deletions were taking place! Therefore, as Jon suggests, this seems to be a premeditated act on Peter's behalf.
Now, if the fact that Peter has decided to remove all of his content from this site is, indeed, due to the skirmish that has taken place in this thread - then perhaps this act is nothing more than a petulant display of pique, procured to protract personal patronage and promulgate persecution.
Or, just maybe, he feels that his pearls of wisdom have been cast before (one or two) swine.
I am willing to bet that it is neither.
While I fully support Jon's comments regarding Peter's inability to get his humour across, I do not feel that Peter is by any means a vindictive person by nature - rather, that he is in fact a little too susceptible to taking any criticism of his communication skills too much to heart.
I will state for the record that I too have found Peter's contributions, in general, very enjoyable reading and immensely informative - not only in areas in which I may have little or no experience (his recent contribution on conducting in the arrangement thread, for example), but also in those areas in which I feel experienced enough to express an opinion (the pop shield thread, where we happened to find ourselves in some agreement) - and I will be one of those who will miss them if they do not return.
I am not one of those who takes exception to somebody's writing style purely for the sake of it, or because I find it difficult reading.
My original post in this thread (it is still there if you wish to find it) was intended to be nothing more than a mildly ironic criticism of Peter's first post, which I felt was unnecessarily unkind towards another individual - something for which I have no time, and no stomach. I also wanted to highlight the difference in tone between his post and every other, and the fact that it completely altered the tone of the entire thread thereafter.
Peter subsequently claimed that I had missed the irony in it. Perhaps I did, but no more than he missed the irony in my initial post, too.
All I did was to call it a pompous post.
There was no personal criticism attached - I did not call him, for example, 'a pompous man'.
And had I not received a tirade of personal invective in retaliation, the matter would have blown over quite easily, and with a minimum of disturbance.
While this, and later retorts, may have been made with some attempt at humour, I - and others - did not find it discernable, and this point has been made well by Jon.
I sincerely hope that Peter will return to this forum and that, when he does, this minor shortcoming in his truly tremendous writing style will have been given some consideration.
I trust that he will.
Best regards to all,
Dan
