I haven't examined Light's attacks on you in detail. I know he baited you over your failure to prove you had delivered papers. That was valid. You used the fact that you had written papers and delivered talks as proof of your authority. You then failed to back this up. That was reprhensible behaviour. Either you lied, or exagerrated, or have some other inadequate reason for failure to prove your claim: remember it was your claim - if you were not ready to justify it you should not have made it. That, to me is truly low, far lower than any personal attack. Personal attacks are irrelevant - attacks on the structure of the scientific method and debate are not. They are wholly unacceptable and must be dealy with vigorously. I applaud Light again for doing do in your case. There is nothing in any post I have made here, that I have presented as fact, that I am not prepared to demonstrate to be fact - or to issue a full and unqualified apology and retraction if I am unable to do so. You apparently hold to lower standards. That is your choice, but do not expect me to praise you for it. The personal attack Light used was to call you a liar. As far as you have demonstrated so far that was a valid claim. You have not refuted it. You choose to hide behind nothing much more than an objection to being called a liar. Yet you can so easily put light in his place by demonstrating what papers you have published, what addresses you have made. Calling you a liar goes straight to the heart of one of your arguments. Up to you to refute it, not bleat about personal attacks. Calling you a "fucking moron" out of the blue would be a personal attack. Calling you a liar when you present evidence to the effect that you are does not seem so to personal to me. There is every point. Exactly what Light asked you to do. He only became belligerent when you persistently refused to do so. You have to distinguish between rhetoric designed to invoke anger (and hence illogical ripostes) in the reader and genuine anger.