>Yeah, that's been posted three times now. What about what he wrote a day or
>two before that? It was, if I remember correctly, quite disparaging.
Your question was why people should listen to someone disparaging them. That's not the context for what Michael wrote. He gave a descriptive account of what he's observed and it was posted here to give info about the lay of the land to people who are interested in change.
That's not disparaging, that's critique. How else should we proceed?