Thanks for your input. Constructive criticism is always welcome. That said, as a journalist/editor, I don't really have a problem with the use of sensationalism to get the point across to what I feel is a world heavily burdened by messages, each fighting for attention. Sensationalism, in this respect, is simply a way to make people sit up and take notice. I don't quite don't quite understand your comment about job understanding, but I do possess a sense of fair play that enables me to accept the fact that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. In the journalistic sense, facts do come into play. But before you anoint yourself as judge, jury and executioner, my suggestion is to to check out the facts first. I did enjoy your "paving...hell" phrase. Hopefully one day I will not only be able to place them in their proper context, but use them in everyday conversation. To lighten things up a bit, I must ask if hell is also accessibe by water? And, is it really true that journalists are bona fide specialists in ensuring libelous accusations reach print? Granted, some do, but isn't the ultimate determination a job for Superlawyer? Finally, you are right when you intimate that I would not run Mr. Crouse's column. Getting back to what I hinted at in earlier posts, I really have no intention of using the magazine as a platform to start an offshore war. However, I will report the facts, as I learn about and understand them, and interpret them for the magazine's readership.
Yes, good or bad isn't the main issue. What does matter to me is my mandate to help promote the continued growth of offshore performance boating.