Oh, good grief, Horrace. I don't, and anyone who bothered to really read what I posted understands the QUESTION that I used to name the thread. It's a direct question to you, regarding your not so subtle charge that Mark Smith used his position on the Marketing Committee to his personal gain.

And no, you certainly didtn't "tip-toe" through the tulips in your response, you bypassed the patch completely. Instead of answering the question you posted some unrelated nonsense concerning the name of the commitee, and never bothered to respond to the primary issue that I asked you about. You seem to do that a lot. You post a lot of obfuscating, non-related information to make it appear that you have responded with substance when you've ducked the issue totally. I mentioned as much in my question to you, and you certainly came through with bells on.

So, lets try again:

You are insinuating (in your original comments) that the Marketing Committe (or perhaps the EC as a whole, it's not really clear) have personally benefited from the decisions made to formulate and promote PPP.

Direct question here: Do you believe that Mark Smith (in particular), or any member of the Marketing Committee or the EC has personally benefited from their decisions on implementation of PPP? Do you believe that PPP was established to benefit Mark or anyone else on the EC and not as a program to improve AMA membership numbers? Do you think there is money being exchanged under the table? What exactly do you mean by "feathering their own nests"?

Will you answer this time, or or just tip-toe around it again?