I'm sorry if I went too far in trying to account for correctness in later accounts of these episodes on the CSN, but I certainly would like to see Mr. Smith's point of view. It is just that I have become rather fussy, of late, especially since the previously mentioned accounts written by the English gentleman who claimed, constantly to know his subject, and insisted that he placed information that was error-free, in his articles and data supplied to other researchers, yet I was able to point out numerous (not just one, two or three, but many) errors, inconsistencies and assumptions in his data, and when I pointed these out to him, he tried to evade the issue by first blaming others, then changing his tactics and diverting attention from these errors through various other means, and some utterly ridiculous statements. When he realised that I wasn't going to fall for this nonsense, he refused to communicate further on the subject. Nevertheless, I have been continuing research in this area, and each time I obtain copies of primary documents, I seem to stumble upon more errors that he has made, yet he claimed that he researched his subject in-depth, and had ridiculed almost every other researcher of the subject. Since then I have learned not to accept any second or third hand account at face value, but to try and check further, especially if I have copies of original documents, or accounts, at hand. Thus my constant warning to one and all: LET THE READER BEWARE.