It might be more accurate if you offered more choices...I'd be glad to see the Zephyr have the ability to do like MRC systems and toggle between say five different engine ID's, but I wouldn't want the "zero in the middle" switcher type control set-up. Your poll seems to combine them as one choice??
I used the jump-port when I first got the Zephyr, but not all my engines seemed to work well with it. Once I got a UT4 walkaround as a second controller, I quit using the jump-port. I wouldn't mind seeing them make a "Twin Zephyr" which would have two controllers in one box, kinda like an MRC Tech IV dualpack for DC. That might be usefull particularly for people just starting in DCC, but I could see situations where I would use it now.
Thanks for the feedback. It's kind of hard to put those polls together, that's why I asked for comments.
I personally like the idea of a switcher mode for setouts and pickups, but if you're not doing those kinds of operations the option isn't particularly useful.
In retrospect I also should have asked about handheld vs. base station units. The fact that the PowerCab is a handheld is another big selling point for that unit.
Randall_Roberts wrote:I have written a blog post on my opinion of the current state of the Digitrax Zephyr, and some ideas about the direction Digitrax needs to take with this product. At the end of the post are three poll questions. I would be grateful if you would respond to this poll, and leave any comments you may have... either on the blog post, in the forum there, or in this thread.Does Digitrax Need to Upgrade the Zephyr?Thanks!
I wouldn't mind if Digitrax upgraded the Zephyr but I can't really see what they could upgrade other than to make it a two train controller system like their DT400s.
Irv
Jack W.
I like the Zepher just as it is, well only because I'm STILL learning the basics of mine.
Trainsrme1
Does the DT400 give you menu driven programming? I'm not being a smart A... I have no experience with the DT400.
As for likeing it as it is because you're still learning the basics... might you like it better if it was easier to learn?
Best!
Hard to improve on near perfection
but the one area of weakness the Zephyr has is it's inability to program
sound equipped decoders without the use of either a booster or blast mode programming
TerryinTexas
See my Web Site Here
http://conewriversubdivision.yolasite.com/
David, et. al.;
I am doing this poll because, despite what Digitrax owners believe, it is my observation that Digitrax is losing market share to NCE because of an inferior user interface. As I say in the blog post, I'm happy with my Zephyr but I have been in the computer field for nearly 30 years and have worked as a teacher of computer programming for nearly 10 years. So I don't have a problem with a numeric display and numeric code programming. But I'm not representative of the average buyer.
The selling points of the NCE power cab are its user interface and its ability to be used both as an all-in-one DCC system at home, and as a cab on a larger NCE based system. This is causing more and more clubs, it seems, to turn to NCE as an alternative to Digitrax.
The selling points of the Zephyr are superior track power output and larger locomotive roster. But when upgrading to the SuperChief the Zephyr becomes nothing more than an extra auto-reversing booster.
The argument that simply adding a DT400 to the Zephyr compensates for its deficiencies doesn't hold water. The Zephyr and PowerCab each go for around $150 street price. The DT400 goes for around $170. Adding the DT400 to the Zephyr more than doubles the cost, negating its cost-effectiveness as an entry-level system.
If Digitrax continues to lose market share, that isn't good for Digitrax users. The poll is to find out what direction people think Digitrax should take the Zephyr if they want to regain lost market share.
As a journalist I have to be objective. I can't write advice for beginners that says something like, "Get yourself a Digitrax Zephyr. I like mine so I'm sure it's the best choice for you."
Randell,
Most of the ideas you have put forth for 'improvements' have merit. I have been in DCC since 1994 and I have been using a Chief level system since it was introduced. Now, if the Zephyr would have been available years before, I suspect I would have a Zephyr system for my layout. I do not need 120 train capability - 10 is fine. What is interesting is that Zephyr really has a full function capability as a base command station. I think some folks get hung up on the built in throttle. When a DT400 is attached to the Loconet, you have excellent thottle/MU/programming capability.
Now, many folks new to DCC are familiar with the DC power packs like MRC makes - They will feel comfortable with this arrangement. They do not have to wire the Loconet cabling - just run trains. If they really want recall/easy MU/programming, they are going to buy at least 1 DT400 very soon.
As far as the Powercab - it is the new kid on the block, and has several years of technology in it that the Zephyr system does not. I agree that NCE's user interface is nice. But there are limitations with the Powercab too. Like in the base configuration, you cannot unplug the the Powercab throttle unless you buy the extra booster unit. The cost of a Powercab/3 amp booster/fascia panel and extra cab climbs very fast. And either system I would not buy unless I had a computer interface attachment. If you really want to program CV's, Decoder Pro is the way to go(and you need to purchase the adapters for both systems).
The other factor with DCC choice is what are other folks in your area using or what is the local club using? Our club uses Digitrax and every member has a DT400R, even though only about 1/2 of them have a layout or DCC system at home. If the local guys had NCE systems, I would have an NCE system as well.
Both the Zephyr and the Powercab are the best 'bang for the buck' starter systems I have seen. My feelings are that the next system from Digitrax will be a replacement for the EB - it does not even support CV readback and could really use a 'refresh'!
Jim Bernier
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I too tough Digitrax was loosing it to NCE, the fact is Digitrax, is growing so fast they have to move to bigger facilities and hire more people.
I am a user/owner of both a Digitrax Zephyr and a NCE Power cab. I also use regularly a Super Chief Digitrax system at the local club and a NCE PhPro system at a club I am an operator.
I agree the interface of the NCE may be prettier and easier to a new user but that menu driven system get on my nerve, as to me, with a Digitrax Zephyr or a DT 400 throttle I can accomplish the same task faster with less key strokes than with any NCE system.
The Zephyr is powering my modules and the Power Cab is only use when I operates on the NCE layout, otherwise it remains in its box.
I know you mean well with this poll however I don't see why Digitrax should improve the Z.
Jim;
Thank you for your well stated response. You make some important points that should be considered by anyone shopping for an entry level system.
I agree that whatever system you buy, it's a good idea to get a computer interface and use Decoder Pro. I have the LocoBuffer USB. Unfortunately I can't get it to work with my Mac, and the Windows notebook I had it hooked to has died.
As for the Empire Builder, my take on that product is that it was simply retained as a mid-range product, dropping from the top spot, when the Super Chief was introduced. Conventional marketing wisdom is that you need three different levels of a product because most people will by the mid-range. I don't believe that has proved to be true with the EB though, as it is clearly inferior to the Zephyr in its inability to read CVs. I think most buyers are smart enough to go with the Zephyr at the low end or save up for the Super Chief if they need a more powerful system. I think they should improve the Zephyr, drop the EB entirely, and if they really think they need three levels come out with a new high-end product.
jalajoie wrote:I agree the interface of the NCE may be prettier and easier to a new user but that menu driven system get on my nerve, as to me, with a Digitrax Zephyr or a DT 400 throttle I can accomplish the same task faster with less key strokes than with any NCE system.
Jack;
You make a very interesting point. In the early days of the Macintosh the argument against it was that the mouse-driven menus were slower than the IBM PC / MS DOS function keys. What this arguement failed to take into account was the learning curve required to reach the level of proficency required for PC users to actually operate the system faster than they could a Macintosh. Back in the day, I was well versed in both systems, as I had to support both in a large organization. I can tell you in all honesty the IBM PC required more than ten times the support that the Mac did for comparable numbers of users.
So you have led me an additional Zephyr improvement idea. Novice and Advanced Operator modes.
davidmbedard wrote: 30 years? Wow, gentlemen, we have a founder of the computer among us!David B
30 years? Wow, gentlemen, we have a founder of the computer among us!
David B
LOL David I took my first College courses in computer science back in 1967 this is 41 years ago. Does it makes me the creator of computer?
Randall_Roberts wrote:I have the LocoBuffer USB. Unfortunately I can't get it to work with my Mac...
I have the LocoBuffer USB. Unfortunately I can't get it to work with my Mac...
And you've been "working with computers" for how long!!??
Sheesh!
Steve
Randall_Roberts wrote:As for the Empire Builder, my take on that product is that it was simply retained as a mid-range product, dropping from the top spot, when the Super Chief was introduced. Conventional marketing wisdom is that you need three different levels of a product because most people will by the mid-range. I don't believe that has proved to be true with the EB though, as it is clearly inferior to the Zephyr in its inability to read CVs. I think most buyers are smart enough to go with the Zephyr at the low end or save up for the Super Chief if they need a more powerful system. I think they should improve the Zephyr, drop the EB entirely, and if they really think they need three levels come out with a new high-end product.
I agree with your thinking on the Empire Builder. It's a mid priced system that is easily put together by Digitrax by packing a DB150 booster and a throttle. For some reason, they have always included a command station in their 5 amp add on booster. The 8 amp version- DB200 does not have any command station ability.
However, your chronology is wrong. Empire Builder was and has never been the top end system. Chief has always been Digitrax' top system. DCS100 has been around for about 15 years. There have been a couple of "Chief" versions but the change in each was the included throttle. DB150, the heart of the Empire Builder wasn't introduced until 1998-99 to replace the former mid range "Big Boy" system. Zephyr was introduced several years later as a full featured starter set. One dealer I spoke to said "I don't know how we're going to sell these Empire Builders now". I believe he broke the sets up and sold them as individual components. At the time, MRC and Atlas has similar priced units and Zephyr competed well with them.
Frankly, I wouldn't purchase a new Zephyr model but I have a Chief as well as a Zephyr. Never been much for menu driven devices. Too many steps to get what most times a single command or a couple of keystrokes will get. I don't use a mouse very often either. Oh, and Zephyr is already a Chief compatible throttle.
Martin Myers
davidmbedard wrote:As I say in the blog post, I'm happy with my Zephyr but I have been in the computer field for nearly 30 years and have worked as a teacher of computer programming for nearly 10 years. So I don't have a problem with a numeric display and numeric code programming. But I'm not representative of the average buyer.30 years? Wow, gentlemen, we have a founder of the computer among us!David B
As I say in the blog post, I'm happy with my Zephyr but I have been in the computer field for nearly 30 years and have worked as a teacher of computer programming for nearly 10 years. So I don't have a problem with a numeric display and numeric code programming. But I'm not representative of the average buyer.
David,
I actually have to side with Randall on this one. When I took Fortran in high school we had an IBM System 360 Mod 50 I believe it was, and I hate to say that was more than 30 years ago!
If Digitrax were looking to upgrade the Zephyr, The two things I would like to see are;
1. built in USB interface with the Soundloader hardware (internal PR3).
2. upgraded function control to 28 from the base station. With the decoder pro throttle, functions 0-28 can be transmitted thru the Zephyr, so it's only a matter of a software upgrade and adding the buttons to the base station.
Having sold, and used, both the Zephyr and the Power Cab, the first thing I noticed is that the zephyr is a more complete system.
Zephyr customers may eventually expand with extra throttles, USB, and/or wireless, but the base unit can handle most all their needs for even a room sized layout.
Power Cab buyers usally come back within a month or so to buy the auto-sw programming switch, because they have accidentlly reprogammed all their locos when they forgot to remove them, and power hungry sound locos quickly overpower the powercab, the base unit just can't cut the mustard on much more than a small (4x8 or two) layout, making the 3 amp smart booster and power supply almost a manditory upgrade.
I'm surprised that David is a DCC dealer and not a lawyer. Personal attacks are a tactic often employed to distract listeners from what a person is saying. But it was kind of him to say that I was right about something... even if it was for the wrong reasons.
My conclusions regarding the Zephyr are based on my own observations of the industry, conversations with dealers, and with other DCC users. David asserts that he sells DCC equipment and hasn't made the same observations I have heard from others. I'll take him at his word, although his statements clearly reflect a personal bias. Perhaps some other dealers have a vested interest in increasing NCE's market share.
The first personal computer I owned was a single-board kit that I soldered together myself. It was based on the RCA Cosmac 1802 microprocessor, a chip it's unlikely you've heard of unless you were in the semiconductor industry in the late 70s. This computer's user interface was a hexidecial keypad and seven segment displays for the address and data bus. I built this kit in 1978 or 79. I also owned a few HO pieces back then, but I don't claim to have been a member of the MIT model railroad club.
Although I have been working with computers for 30 years, when I follow the installation instructions for a peripheral device and a software package explicitly, and the software does not recognize the presence of the hardware device I have no magic incantation to make it do so. Because my LocoBuffer worked on my Windows box, I never bothered to spend time on the phone or swapping emails with tech support to get it working on the Mac.
As I have often told my students, computers are like medicine (and for that matter, model railroading). There are many specialized areas, and few people if any can be a master of them all.
As to the matter of more clubs turning to NCE, I did not mean that clubs are pulling out Digitrax systems and replacing them with NCE, but that NCE is gaining market share in new installations.
Martin; I read somewhere that the Empire builder was originally the top end product and gave place to the Super Chief. If I have been misinformed as to the chronology I accepted what I read because introducing a product that can't read CVs as a mid-range product when you have a low-end product that will makes no sense.
river_eagle; thanks for your input. I believe that the best target market for low end systems is smaller layouts like 4x8 or shelf layouts. And because shelf layouts are usually switching layouts, I really like the idea of being able to put the throttle into a "yard" mode or "switcher" mode... a mode where the throttle is bi-directional like the old Bachmann brick power packs.
To those of you who have responded to my question seriously instead of using it as an occassion to belittle me for your own amusement, you have my thanks.
davidmbedard wrote:The selling points of the NCE power cab are its user interface and its ability to be used both as an all-in-one DCC system at home, and as a cab on a larger NCE based system....and this is different from the Z how? The Z is a MORE capable stand along system and doesnt become obsolete when you grow beyond it.
The selling points of the NCE power cab are its user interface and its ability to be used both as an all-in-one DCC system at home, and as a cab on a larger NCE based system.
...and this is different from the Z how? The Z is a MORE capable stand along system and doesnt become obsolete when you grow beyond it.
Although I would generally agree with you that the Zephyr has the better upgrade path than the Power Cab, I do have to disagree with you on one point.
Although the Power Cab's wall transformer and PCP panel do not get utilized when upgrading to the PH Pro system like the Power Cab throttle does, they can be used and are still needed if you should ever decide to use your Power Cab to do your programming at your bench. So, essentially, they do NOT become obsolete.
Now, if you were strictly referring to the Smart Booster, then I wholeheartedly agree. However, you didn't make mention of it so I wanted to clarify that point.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Randall_Roberts wrote: I am doing this poll because, despite what Digitrax owners believe, it is my observation that Digitrax is losing market share to NCE because of an inferior user interface.
I am doing this poll because, despite what Digitrax owners believe, it is my observation that Digitrax is losing market share to NCE because of an inferior user interface.
Randall, this is the statement that I think many would take issue with. The notion that somehow the Ireland's and the team at Digitrax don't know what is going on in their market is not believable. Digitrax defined the entry level DCC segment with the Zephyr several years back. For the best part of 4 years they had the segment entirely to themselves. As other companies follow into the segment, new products are obviously going to take away some market share. They know it, they know the impact it is having on their business and they will no doubt respond when and if it is necessary.
Digitrax, like NCE is a small company. They have clearly been focusing on sound decoders this past few years, and quite possibly on a more profitable and growing part of their business. An innovative duplex wireless systems is coming out and higher function support upgrades are coming as well. History would suggest to me that Digitrax management has a remarkably good grasp and understanding of their market and will more than likely respond when resources dictate. The fact that their core product platform is well over a decade old and still commands a high percentage of the market tells you something about how well designed the device actually is.
Anyway, accepting the arguement that the Z should get a face-lift, what would I do?
1. Console or not console? Tough one here. For some a console is exactly what they want for a home layout. The Z just occupies the space that the old DC throttle took. Right now the Z is the only real entry level console DCC system. I would be careful about eliminating that advantage when it is so easy to add a walk-around throttle for relatively low cost (UT4)
2. Ease of use. Nothing can be simpler to operate than the Z with its nice throttle lever and direction/brake control. For day-to-day operations it is trivial. For simple basic programming like cab number etc. it is also easy to use. It all gets a bit complex with more advanced programming. If you add the PC into the equation all systems are equal. I would build in the interface in the Z generation 2.
3. Function support. Add more simply to bring it up to spec.
4. Other features. A recall stack would be a nice to. Yard mode is bunk IMO. The current throttle /brake reverse controls work great and give you yard like control. I tend to set the speed with the throttle knob and do all my control with the direction/brake lever.
In conclusion. The Zephyr 2 would have a built in PC interface. It would have a recall stack and 28 function support. Beyond that I would not change it a bit.
I would reduce the price of the basic system to undercut the PowerCab and then offer a slightly higher priced bundle that would include the Z2 and a UT4. This would I suspect give a boost to sales.
Of course I don't know anything about the profitability of either the Z or the PowerCab. For all we know these systems are selling with very low margin and actually don't make much money for the companies. For all we know NCE is regretting ever introducing the PowerCab. Has the increase in PowerCab volume offset the lost margin as it takes sales away from the ProCab?
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
tstage wrote:Although the Power Cab's wall transformer and PCP panel do not get utilized when upgrading to the PH Pro system like the Power Cab throttle does, they can be used and are still needed if you should ever decide to use your Power Cab to do your programming at your bench. So, essentially, they do NOT become obsolete. Tom
Tom, that depends entirely on your layout/"bench" situation.
In my case, I don't have a dedicated bench, at least nothing where I can set up a programming track. So for me, those components would indeed become obsolete.
I would also hazard a guess that many PC users build their programming track into the layout based on the PC's stock configuration. Then they upgrade to the full PHP and leave their programming track on the layout (Who can blame them? It's there, it's wired, it works, and it' what they're used to. Why move it?), well, in that case we're still back to obsolete components.
jalajoie wrote:There is no need to upgrade the Zephyr, simply add a DT400 to it and you are done.
That's what I did but it would great if you didn't need to do that right away.
corsair7 wrote: jalajoie wrote:There is no need to upgrade the Zephyr, simply add a DT400 to it and you are done.That's what I did but it would great if you didn't need to do that right away.Irv
I agree but in my case I already had 2 throttles that I was using on the club layout, one UT1 and one DT100R I never use the Zephyr console to run train, only to program decoders. Now I added two more throttles one UT4R and the DT400R we are using radio at the club.
The Z console form factor is a deal breaker to some but was irrelevant to me. Lets not forget that Digitrax Big Boy "IIRC" was built exactly as the NCE Power Cab that is with a handheld throttle that also was the command station, years ahead of the Power Cab. Why Digitrax ditched this form factor in unknown to me.
I believe that beginner sets in days soon to come will need a bundled DCC system, like the interesting but unsupported Roco set someone on here was purchasing at a close-out price last week. I think those Roco sets were ahead of their time. I believe train sets will soon have bundled DCC because we have seen the prices of computers, video games, and cell phones drop as their functionality and user interface features have improved. I think DCC systems, like other technologies, will follow making it cost effective to put them in a train set.
My concern is that Digitrax is neglecting the entry level market, and that this will ultimately cost them even more in terms of long-term market share. While the new Bachmann DCC command station unit is visually appealing, looking like a hand-held video game with its large LCD panel, I don't think many people on this forum would disagree with my desire to see Digitrax offer an entry level product comparable in "look and feel", competitvely priced, but with the power of the Zephyr. This is where I am coming from.
David; I have not observed anyone belittling you in this thread... unless of course you feel belittled any time someone disagrees with you.
my 2 cents on the zephyr, i have posted something similar elswhere;
1) i don't like the fact that when you acquire an already moving loco it suddenly changes speed and/or direction depending on the possition of the throttle and the brake lever. the solution for me would be a big knob like the UT4 on an encoder instead of a pot, and a button to change direction like the DT*00's this way the loco keeps its speed and direction and can be adjusted accordingly AFTER a smooth acquisition. the sudden speed and direction change can be lessened by using accelleration and decelleration settings, but they are always there then and you may not want them.
2) i think the display should be like the DT series in that it shows direction, speed and function status at a glance. maybe with a bigger display than the DT's as it is likely to be further away than a hand held unit.
3) following on from 2 really but i would like to see 2 big knobs on 2 encoders with a direction change button for each allowing the same usage and function as a DT400. in simple terms i guess i'm looking for a digitrax version of the hornby elite ( google for pictures ) it would in effect be a BIG DT400 desk console with the commmand station built in.
4) must be able to control all functions from the console, not just the first 12 or whatever it does now.
5) maybe also build in IR and the new duplex radio to the unit as an option at innitial purchase rather than add to a loconet?
the snag with all my 'improvements' and some of the other options folks would like is that what we really want is an entry level top of the range system in terms of function and cost. obviosly a contradiction in terms. as it stands if you want most things get a chief, if you are learning get a zephyr. never get an empire builder as a stand alone system, not reading back CV's or having a dedicated programming track output is a real PIA. if you want a booster and a DT400 though get it cos it's cheaper than those 2 sold individually and you get a UP5 thrown in. when digitrax eventually get duplex radio and F28 controllable from a DT400, their product will be top of the pile in terms of spec and expandabillity at a fair price. maybe i'll still have hair by the time it happens??
davidmbedard wrote:With the OP, my spidey sence just started tingling. He says he is a 30 year computer programmer, a teacher and a journalist, yet he cant get a USB item to work with his Mac and posts bias polls. Something isnt right here. David B
With the OP, my spidey sence just started tingling. He says he is a 30 year computer programmer, a teacher and a journalist, yet he cant get a USB item to work with his Mac and posts bias polls. Something isnt right here.
What I believe I said was that DecoderPro would not recognize the device, even though the drivers were properly installed (the Mac OS recognized the device). And, because it worked on the first try with my Windows box, I didn't pursue the matter.
I am no longer a teacher, as surgery on my throat last year prevents me from talking longer than a few minutes at a time, and also limits my other activites somewhat. You may call the Glendale (California) College Business Division and ask the division chair whether or not I taught there in recent years. As for my being a journalist, please visit http://modeltrains.about.com and look over the articles I have written on the subject of model railroading. As I have said, most are geared towards beginners, so I don't expect that there's much if anything there you don't already know. I always welcome constructive feedback from experienced modelers.
Stevert wrote: tstage wrote:Although the Power Cab's wall transformer and PCP panel do not get utilized when upgrading to the PH Pro system like the Power Cab throttle does, they can be used and are still needed if you should ever decide to use your Power Cab to do your programming at your bench. So, essentially, they do NOT become obsolete. Tom Tom, that depends entirely on your layout/"bench" situation. In my case, I don't have a dedicated bench, at least nothing where I can set up a programming track. So for me, those components would indeed become obsolete. I would also hazard a guess that many PC users build their programming track into the layout based on the PC's stock configuration. Then they upgrade to the full PHP and leave their programming track on the layout (Who can blame them? It's there, it's wired, it works, and it' what they're used to. Why move it?), well, in that case we're still back to obsolete components. Steve
Steve,
I guess the point I was making is that they don't "have" to become obsolete. With the Smart Booster, there is no work around so it does become "dead weight" when you upgrade. (Unlike the Zephyr, where you can use it as an addition power booster when upgrading. That's a good design! ) However, with the PCP panel and the wall transformer, you do have the option to still use them - even if you do upgrade.
I guess I'm one of those few Power Cab users who hasn't built their programming track into their layout. So I have my programming track on a separate ~27" section of 1 x 3, which makes it very portable. I can easily use it at my layout when I need it and store out of the way when it's not in use. And, since it's portable, I can also take my programming track over to a friend's house or club meeting and program my (or anyone else's) locomotive(s) there - even if there is no layout.
So, until I upgrade to a PH Pro, every part of my Power Cab is still being used. And, even if I do upgrade, my "portable" programming track still needs and uses the PCP panel and wall transformer, which I have the option of using at my workbench...or dining room table...or office computer...or friend's house...or club meeting, etc., etc.
As you pointed out, Steve, it depends entirely how one uses their system. In my case, things dont' have to (or have yet to) become obsolete.
davidmbedard wrote:A blog doesnt make a journalist. You should only list Journalism as a profession if you actually get paid or make a living doing it...let alone use it to defend your 'polls' here on these forums.
A blog doesnt make a journalist. You should only list Journalism as a profession if you actually get paid or make a living doing it...let alone use it to defend your 'polls' here on these forums.
About.com is a New York Times company. My writing for About.com is a paid position. Also, if you had looked over my About.com the site, you would see that there is much more to it than just blog posts. With the exception of your responses, this thread has for the most part been a civil discussion of why I think the Zephyr needs to be updated, and what others feel would be important features if it was updated.
If your perception is that I'm defending my polls, it is probably because you are the one attacking them. And every time I answer your remarks with specific comments related to the issue at hand, the Zephyr, you respond with further personal attacks on me. So, in fact, it is not my polls that I'm defending, it is myself.
[Interjection]
I think this is a good topic of discussion. However, it appears that responses are (and have been) getting a little too personal at times. Can we please stay on topic - without challenging one anothers credentials?
I would prefer to keep the discussion going, if possible. Thanks for your cooperation.