CLAC's in Home Fleet

cthia wrote:I also appreciate that you liken CLAC/LACs to the US Navy aircraft carriers/fighter jets. Interesting. I appreciate that angle.

In this case, I had hopes of igniting a tactical/strategic discussion regarding the use of CLACs. Which I think, at least peripherally, was your intention as well.

An officer can dream.

Sigs' thesis as he apparently meant it and you read it depends on a very small number of total RMN CLAC's and possibly a peculiar instant in deployment - an assumption he made without mentioning and no one else seems to have so much as suspected.

Anyway, re CLAC's as carriers and LAC's as fighters. They're not. They're really not. For at least one sense in which they are not, see:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/138/1
- aptly titled "Shrikes and Ferrets are not fighters". That one is pointing out the RMN LAC's as parasite warships, meant to get along in system on their own for fairly long periods. Fighters do not, at all.

For another, fighters operate in a different medium than do ships at vastly higher speeds. LAC's have a bit more acceleration than larger warships, but not by any comparable degree to the aircraft/carrier split. More to the point, they're for use in space only, just like the warships. You don't use them to project power into atmosphere - KEWs do that well enough, but if you want finer work, you use pinnaces, assault shuttles, stingships, and marines. You don't use LAC's. As far as media of operation go, hypercapable warships are more advanced than LAC's, since they can handle grav waves, wormhole transits, and hyperspace band translations.

LAC's are light warships. They lose some endurance and all hypercapability for some stealth, some speed, and a whole lot more firepower per unit cost (of all sorts) and less vulnerability per unit cost relative to their practical closest counterparts, small destroyers.

A CLAC and LAC wing aren't an aircraft carrier and fighters, used as much for air and indirect ground control as much as ocean surface control. The counterpart barely exists. It's not something to deploy in a hurry to a trouble spot any more than a cruiser squadron. Or any less, really - they're approximately interchangeable. (It breaks down, of course, depending on how much you need granular hypercapability and sheer firepower. But in a system, it's close enough.)

Jonathan_S wrote:

Sigs wrote:What I am questioning is the need to station upwards to 40% of your carriers with the one fleet that has integrated support bases. Granted when I asked the question initially I did not actually visualize the area of operation for Home Fleet but stationing 40% or more of your CLACs there seems a little excessive.

I must have missed something.

Where did it say that 40% of the active duty CLACs were assigned to Home Fleet? (And at what timeframe?)


I agree that that does seem an awfully high percentage; I wouldn't have expected more than 20 to maybe 30%. There are pretty powerful fleets in at least Talbott and Trevor's Star; which should have their own powerful CLAC forces.



I guess, right at the end of the Python lump that 40% of the active CLACs might have been in the Manticore system - but only because a larger number of newly launched units were still working up and weren't ready to ship out or be assigned to fleets yet.
Or when Fileretta anticipated invasion showed up they may have pulled many of the units back from Trevor's Star - the combined Home Fleet + 3rd/8th fleet CLACs might amount to 40% of the active classes...
But I can't see perminatly keeping 40% of your CLACs around Manticore - that puts them too far from the fronts. 'When days count Manticore is only weeks away'

I made a guesstimate, as of 1920 there were 42 CLACs in the RMN and when HMS Hexapuma came back in 1921 there were 16 CLACs stationed within the Home System. I don't see how the CLACs could have increased that dramatically for the 16 CLACs to represent anything less than 30% of total strength since the RMN was focusing on new SD(P )'s. Granted that I have the 40% based on an assumption that the CLACs would strength would not increase that Dramatically over the one year period between 1920 and 1921.

Sigs wrote:I made a guesstimate, as of 1920 there were 42 CLACs in the RMN and when HMS Hexapuma came back in 1921 there were 16 CLACs stationed within the Home System. I don't see how the CLACs could have increased that dramatically for the 16 CLACs to represent anything less than 30% of total strength since the RMN was focusing on new SD(P )'s. Granted that I have the 40% based on an assumption that the CLACs would strength would not increase that Dramatically over the one year period between 1920 and 1921.

House of Steel lists 18 Minotaur CLAC's and 94+ Hydra CLAC's commissioned in the RMN - that won't count losses and maybe not sales to allies, though, and should be as of 1922. The GSN (including, I think, the Protector's Own) has had by then 6 purchased Minotaur CLAC's and 30+ Covingtons - I mention them because the Minotaurs may (?) count against how many the RMN still had, and because some of those may be included in the amount stationed in the Manticore System at some time or another.

Not included here are any captures, such as after the Battle of Manticore, but I doubt any of the counts at issue would be including them anyway. I also figure that all or almost all the CLAC sales are in the 6 Minotaurs to the GSN.

So - between them, in 1922 at least, 142+ CLAC's minus some losses (but not many; CLAC's don't come under much fire). I don't think that 106+ in the RMN in 1922 is too compatible with
42 in 1920. It's not logically impossible, but it's a real stretch, and if it is the case, it means that the 42 total figure and 16 in the Home System do still represent a short and exceptional period.

JeffEngel wrote:

cthia wrote:I also appreciate that you liken CLAC/LACs to the US Navy aircraft carriers/fighter jets. Interesting. I appreciate that angle.

In this case, I had hopes of igniting a tactical/strategic discussion regarding the use of CLACs. Which I think, at least peripherally, was your intention as well.

An officer can dream.

Sigs' thesis as he apparently meant it and you read it depends on a very small number of total RMN CLAC's and possibly a peculiar instant in deployment - an assumption he made without mentioning and no one else seems to have so much as suspected.

Anyway, re CLAC's as carriers and LAC's as fighters. They're not. They're really not. For at least one sense in which they are not, see:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/138/1
- aptly titled "Shrikes and Ferrets are not fighters". That one is pointing out the RMN LAC's as parasite warships, meant to get along in system on their own for fairly long periods. Fighters do not, at all.

For another, fighters operate in a different medium than do ships at vastly higher speeds. LAC's have a bit more acceleration than larger warships, but not by any comparable degree to the aircraft/carrier split. More to the point, they're for use in space only, just like the warships. You don't use them to project power into atmosphere - KEWs do that well enough, but if you want finer work, you use pinnaces, assault shuttles, stingships, and marines. You don't use LAC's. As far as media of operation go, hypercapable warships are more advanced than LAC's, since they can handle grav waves, wormhole transits, and hyperspace band translations.

LAC's are light warships. They lose some endurance and all hypercapability for some stealth, some speed, and a whole lot more firepower per unit cost (of all sorts) and less vulnerability per unit cost relative to their practical closest counterparts, small destroyers.

A CLAC and LAC wing aren't an aircraft carrier and fighters, used as much for air and indirect ground control as much as ocean surface control. The counterpart barely exists. It's not something to deploy in a hurry to a trouble spot any more than a cruiser squadron. Or any less, really - they're approximately interchangeable. (It breaks down, of course, depending on how much you need granular hypercapability and sheer firepower. But in a system, it's close enough.)

Jeff Engel:
Anyway, re CLAC's as carriers and LAC's as fighters. They're not. They're really not. For at least one sense in which they are not, see:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/138/1
- aptly titled "Shrikes and Ferrets are not fighters". That one is pointing out the RMN LAC's as parasite warships, meant to get along in system on their own for fairly long periods. Fighters do not, at all.

I never said that I agreed with Sig's analogy of Carriers/Jets to CLACs/LACs. I only said that I appreciate the sharing of this angle. And I do. It is the kind of thing that interests me in the minds of other people. Oftentimes, certainly regarding strategy and tactics, the ability to reduce certain elements into its basic constituent parts of relative threat assessment assists one in the task of formulating a correct strategy for the particular task at hand.

I do not agree that there is absolutely no corollary between the two. On the contrary, I would champion the fact that there is. Just as can be listed senses that they are not, also there are senses that they are...

1. Fighter Jets have a limited range therefore need carriers to deploy to remote regions.

2. LACs have limited range - lacking hypercapability and need carriers.

3. An aircraft carrier can deploy a large amount of firepower to a remote area vis-à-vis CLACs.

4. An aircraft carrier is a mobile base of operations vis-à-vis CLACs.

5. LACs vis-à-vis fighter jets, represent significant firepower. (Especially Katanas.) When first introduced, I am certain the Peeps felt no different than the Japanese battleships when US Navy fighter jets swooped down from the sky.

If these five paradigms or less are all a strategist needs to accomplish a particular objective, then guess what, a CLAC/LAC for all intents and purposes is analogous to carriers/jets.

The fact that the future has injected each with steroids and increased their utility several fold is irrelevant. The stage of conflict has also increased directly proportional.

Conception and perception cannot be allowed to grow stagnant through static cling.

cthia wrote:5. LACs vis-à-vis fighter jets, represent significant firepower. (Especially Katanas.) When first introduced, I am certain the Peeps felt no different than the Japanese battleships when US Navy fighter jets swooped down from the sky.

Minor historical nitpicking - no fighter jet ever attacked a Japanese battleship, as the vast majority of jetfighters were created after WW2. The IJN was only ever set upon aerially by piston-engined propellor planes.

munroburton wrote:

cthia wrote:5. LACs vis-à-vis fighter jets, represent significant firepower. (Especially Katanas.) When first introduced, I am certain the Peeps felt no different than the Japanese battleships when US Navy fighter jets swooped down from the sky.

Minor historical nitpicking - no fighter jet ever attacked a Japanese battleship, as the vast majority of jetfighters were created after WW2. The IJN was only ever set upon aerially by piston-engined propellor planes.

Thanks for that, not so minor - yet correct, nit.

Truthfully, I was peripherally aware of it, but chose to use it in an analogous, general "gist" anyways. Though I shouldn't have.

cthia wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Anyway, re CLAC's as carriers and LAC's as fighters. They're not. They're really not. For at least one sense in which they are not, see:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/138/1
- aptly titled "Shrikes and Ferrets are not fighters". That one is pointing out the RMN LAC's as parasite warships, meant to get along in system on their own for fairly long periods. Fighters do not, at all.

I never said that I agreed with Sig's analogy of Carriers/Jets to CLACs/LACs. I only said that I appreciate the sharing of this angle. And I do. It is the kind of thing that interests me in the minds of other people. Oftentimes, certainly regarding strategy and tactics, the ability to reduce certain elements into its basic constituent parts of relative threat assessment assists one in the task of formulating a correct strategy for the particular task at hand.

I do not agree that there is absolutely no corollary between the two.

I wouldn't make that claim. I'd just suggest that there's (a) not much of a corollary, and (b) someone's likely to make more mistakes clinging to the impression of one than they will ever be spared rejecting it.

On the contrary, I would champion the fact that there is. Just as can be listed senses that they are not, also there are senses that they are...

1. Fighter Jets have a limited range therefore need carriers to deploy to remote regions.

2. LACs have limited range - lacking hypercapability and need carriers.

These may count for one. Anyway, yes, LAC's are parasite warships. If you're looking for a wet naval counterpart though, that's more like old destroyers and tenders, or torpedo boats and tenders - and I'm pretty sure they've been the more specific comparison made by RFC at some point or another.

Heck, if you want to make this point, you would do better to point out that fighters don't move on water and need carriers for it, and LAC's don't move in or out of hyper and need CLAC's for it, but even then, I'd just shrug and say yeah, okay, and?

How much does this comparison owe to how much our navy familiarity is steeped - soaked - drenched! - in the late 20th, early 21st century US Navy experience specifically? And if it's forced compared to any other era, any other form of military, or any other nation, why would it possibly be informative for space navies of the 40th century and later?

3. An aircraft carrier can deploy a large amount of firepower to a remote area vis-à-vis CLACs.

Well sure. And a DD squadron does the same thing. It's a bunch of ships. The LAC's are a bunch of ships. They depend on another for hypercapability. Reaching for the aircraft carrier as an analogy here is reaching further than, say, a ground convoy getting to a destination with the support of a fuel carrier in it. And no one is going to be in a hurry to compare a CLAC and wing to that.

4. An aircraft carrier is a mobile base of operations vis-à-vis CLACs.

Urph. Again, the tender with torpedo boats serves the CLAC's purpose for the LAC's more than the carrier does for the fighters. The fighters don't roam independently of the carrier for long at all, but they do roam very quickly. The LAC's - or torpedo boats - do roam from their tender for long periods, as need be, but don't roam all that quickly.

5. LACs vis-à-vis fighter jets, represent significant firepower. (Especially Katanas.) When first introduced, I am certain the Peeps felt no different than the Japanese battleships when US Navy fighter jets swooped down from the sky.

Like naval aircraft, LAC's are scary. Well... like torpedo boats, LAC's are scary. For that matter, like submarines, ironclads, rifled artillery.... The fighter analogy just isn't particularly close.

If these five paradigms or less are all a strategist needs to accomplish a particular objective, then guess what, a CLAC/LAC for all intents and purposes is analogous to carriers/jets.

And if the comparison brings in associations that will steer the strategist wrong, it's a problem. If the strategist has to work to guard against those, it's a cost that may or may not be worth it.

What's gained by the comparison? Would the strategist have a hard time thinking of fast, small STL warships that take a tender for hypercapability? I have a hard time imagining an affirmative answer on that one, and 20th century PD strategist can just think of them as in-system destroyers with a capital ship to provide hypercapability and be on her merry way. We can think of them that way and be in the very same position.

JeffEngel wrote:

Sigs wrote:I made a guesstimate, as of 1920 there were 42 CLACs in the RMN and when HMS Hexapuma came back in 1921 there were 16 CLACs stationed within the Home System. I don't see how the CLACs could have increased that dramatically for the 16 CLACs to represent anything less than 30% of total strength since the RMN was focusing on new SD(P )'s. Granted that I have the 40% based on an assumption that the CLACs would strength would not increase that Dramatically over the one year period between 1920 and 1921.

House of Steel lists 18 Minotaur CLAC's and 94+ Hydra CLAC's commissioned in the RMN - that won't count losses and maybe not sales to allies, though, and should be as of 1922. The GSN (including, I think, the Protector's Own) has had by then 6 purchased Minotaur CLAC's and 30+ Covingtons - I mention them because the Minotaurs may (?) count against how many the RMN still had, and because some of those may be included in the amount stationed in the Manticore System at some time or another.

Not included here are any captures, such as after the Battle of Manticore, but I doubt any of the counts at issue would be including them anyway. I also figure that all or almost all the CLAC sales are in the 6 Minotaurs to the GSN.

So - between them, in 1922 at least, 142+ CLAC's minus some losses (but not many; CLAC's don't come under much fire). I don't think that 106+ in the RMN in 1922 is too compatible with
42 in 1920. It's not logically impossible, but it's a real stretch, and if it is the case, it means that the 42 total figure and 16 in the Home System do still represent a short and exceptional period.

Well the Fleet strength as of 1920 stated that there are 42 CLAC's, which to me means that in the time frame between 1920 and 1922 the RMN more than tripled their carrier strength, a lot of CLAC's were destroyed before 1920, the Fleet Strength numbers wrong http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/site/entry/Harrington/106/1 or a lot of those CLAC's were decommissioned by the High Ridge government and/or sold off to Allies or a combination of all those things.

I am using one instance in time to gage the fleet strength of home fleet because as far as I know that is the most detailed breakdown of Home Fleet in the series prior to the Battle of Manticore. As for CLACs being there as a reserve to draw from, it would require that SD(P )'s also be part of the reserve as well as lighter escort ships. Having only CLAC's as your reserve seems like a bad idea, and raiding Home Fleet for SD's, BC's and escorts to send out as reinforcements also does not make too much sense, I realize it has been done but doing something repeatedly and for good reason does not necessarily mean it stops being a bad idea.

Also when I refer to Aircraft Carriers and Fighters I am referring to the relationship between the carrier and its aircraft or in the case of LAC's the carrier and its LAC's. I am using fighters as a generic term for the aircraft of the carrier, I know its wrong and from this point on I'll try to remember to refer to them as simply aircraft. It is true that a CLAC could drop off its LAC's in a system with an ammunition ship and leave them there but then again a Japanese Helicopter Destroyer can drop off its aircraft on land as long as they drop off ammunition and fuel stores.

cthia wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Anyway, re CLAC's as carriers and LAC's as fighters. They're not. They're really not. For at least one sense in which they are not, see:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/138/1
- aptly titled "Shrikes and Ferrets are not fighters". That one is pointing out the RMN LAC's as parasite warships, meant to get along in system on their own for fairly long periods. Fighters do not, at all.

I never said that I agreed with Sig's analogy of Carriers/Jets to CLACs/LACs. I only said that I appreciate the sharing of this angle. And I do. It is the kind of thing that interests me in the minds of other people. Oftentimes, certainly regarding strategy and tactics, the ability to reduce certain elements into its basic constituent parts of relative threat assessment assists one in the task of formulating a correct strategy for the particular task at hand.

I do not agree that there is absolutely no corollary between the two.

JeffEngel wrote:I wouldn't make that claim. I'd just suggest that there's (a) not much of a corollary, and (b) someone's likely to make more mistakes clinging to the impression of one than they will ever be spared rejecting it.

On the contrary, I would champion the fact that there is. Just as can be listed senses that they are not, also there are senses that they are...

1. Fighter Jets have a limited range therefore need carriers to deploy to remote regions.

2. LACs have limited range - lacking hypercapability and need carriers.

These may count for one. Anyway, yes, LAC's are parasite warships. If you're looking for a wet naval counterpart though, that's more like old destroyers and tenders, or torpedo boats and tenders - and I'm pretty sure they've been the more specific comparison made by RFC at some point or another.

Heck, if you want to make this point, you would do better to point out that fighters don't move on water and need carriers for it, and LAC's don't move in or out of hyper and need CLAC's for it, but even then, I'd just shrug and say yeah, okay, and?

How much does this comparison owe to how much our navy familiarity is steeped - soaked - drenched! - in the late 20th, early 21st century US Navy experience specifically? And if it's forced compared to any other era, any other form of military, or any other nation, why would it possibly be informative for space navies of the 40th century and later?

3. An aircraft carrier can deploy a large amount of firepower to a remote area vis-à-vis CLACs.

Well sure. And a DD squadron does the same thing. It's a bunch of ships. The LAC's are a bunch of ships. They depend on another for hypercapability. Reaching for the aircraft carrier as an analogy here is reaching further than, say, a ground convoy getting to a destination with the support of a fuel carrier in it. And no one is going to be in a hurry to compare a CLAC and wing to that.

4. An aircraft carrier is a mobile base of operations vis-à-vis CLACs.

Urph. Again, the tender with torpedo boats serves the CLAC's purpose for the LAC's more than the carrier does for the fighters. The fighters don't roam independently of the carrier for long at all, but they do roam very quickly. The LAC's - or torpedo boats - do roam from their tender for long periods, as need be, but don't roam all that quickly.

5. LACs vis-à-vis fighter jets, represent significant firepower. (Especially Katanas.) When first introduced, I am certain the Peeps felt no different than the Japanese battleships when US Navy fighter jets swooped down from the sky.

Like naval aircraft, LAC's are scary. Well... like torpedo boats, LAC's are scary. For that matter, like submarines, ironclads, rifled artillery.... The fighter analogy just isn't particularly close.

If these five paradigms or less are all a strategist needs to accomplish a particular objective, then guess what, a CLAC/LAC for all intents and purposes is analogous to carriers/jets.

And if the comparison brings in associations that will steer the strategist wrong, it's a problem. If the strategist has to work to guard against those, it's a cost that may or may not be worth it.

What's gained by the comparison? Would the strategist have a hard time thinking of fast, small STL warships that take a tender for hypercapability? I have a hard time imagining an affirmative answer on that one, and 20th century PD strategist can just think of them as in-system destroyers with a capital ship to provide hypercapability and be on her merry way. We can think of them that way and be in the very same position.

Jeff Engel:
... I'd just suggest that there's (a) not much of a corollary...

I can get on this bus. I assume you did acknowledge this...

Cthia:
I never said that I agreed with Sig's analogy of Carriers/Jets to CLACs/LACs. I only said that I appreciate the sharing of his angle. An interesting angle.

I simply think it insightful to be able to take a step back and perceive the similarity. Of course the two separate pieces of the puzzle aren't wholly interchangeable, and I'm willing to wager that neither does Sigs think that they are completely analogous. I simply thought his analogy was interesting and insightful, as I stated and commend him for it.

Jeff Engel:
If you're looking for a wet naval counterpart though, that's more like old destroyers and tenders, or torpedo boats and tenders - and I'm pretty sure they've been the more specific comparison made by RFC at some point or another.

*I've come across this several times in this thread alone. You miss a profound subtlety - when one's tactical or strategic situation calls for the promotion of a piece to a stronger force such as the analogous logistics of Aircraft carriers/fighter jets (Rooks), as opposed to the weaker analogy of old destroyers/torpedo boats and tenders, (Bishops, Knights) per my perspective. It isn't that I search for a wet navy counterpart (nor do I think it so with Sigs). I am looking for a satisfying, appropriate force. Suitable, fitting to properly fill a particular strategic requirement.

*I do tend to reduce many things to the chess board. (Surprise) My niece and I must be twins in that regard. We understand each other. I once read that great Generals were avid chess players and that the hallmark of the best was the ability to reduce strategy and tactics to a simplest form. Occams Razor.

Jeff Engel:
And if the comparison brings in associations that will steer the strategist wrong, it's a problem. If the strategist has to work to guard against those, it's a cost that may or may not be worth it.

Conversely, the kind of strategist who recognizes situational simularities in Aircraft carriers/Jets to CLACs/LACs is disciplined and intelligent enough to recognize the limitations inherent and would obtain the wherewithal not to carry(npi) the analogy too far.

Jeff Engel:
What's gained by the comparison?

A situational, Occam's razor sharp clarity.


The analogy isn't inherently wrong. Incorrect application, thereof, would be.

JeffEngel wrote:

Sigs wrote:I made a guesstimate, as of 1920 there were 42 CLACs in the RMN and when HMS Hexapuma came back in 1921 there were 16 CLACs stationed within the Home System. I don't see how the CLACs could have increased that dramatically for the 16 CLACs to represent anything less than 30% of total strength since the RMN was focusing on new SD(P )'s. Granted that I have the 40% based on an assumption that the CLACs would strength would not increase that Dramatically over the one year period between 1920 and 1921.

House of Steel lists 18 Minotaur CLAC's and 94+ Hydra CLAC's commissioned in the RMN - that won't count losses and maybe not sales to allies, though, and should be as of 1922. The GSN (including, I think, the Protector's Own) has had by then 6 purchased Minotaur CLAC's and 30+ Covingtons - I mention them because the Minotaurs may (?) count against how many the RMN still had, and because some of those may be included in the amount stationed in the Manticore System at some time or another.

Not included here are any captures, such as after the Battle of Manticore, but I doubt any of the counts at issue would be including them anyway. I also figure that all or almost all the CLAC sales are in the 6 Minotaurs to the GSN.

So - between them, in 1922 at least, 142+ CLAC's minus some losses (but not many; CLAC's don't come under much fire). I don't think that 106+ in the RMN in 1922 is too compatible with
42 in 1920. It's not logically impossible, but it's a real stretch, and if it is the case, it means that the 42 total figure and 16 in the Home System do still represent a short and exceptional period.

Sigs wrote:Well the Fleet strength as of 1920 stated that there are 42 CLAC's, which to me means that in the time frame between 1920 and 1922 the RMN more than tripled their carrier strength, a lot of CLAC's were destroyed before 1920, the Fleet Strength numbers wrong http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/site/entry/Harrington/106/1 or a lot of those CLAC's were decommissioned by the High Ridge government and/or sold off to Allies or a combination of all those things.

I am using one instance in time to gage the fleet strength of home fleet because as far as I know that is the most detailed breakdown of Home Fleet in the series prior to the Battle of Manticore. As for CLACs being there as a reserve to draw from, it would require that SD(P )'s also be part of the reserve as well as lighter escort ships. Having only CLAC's as your reserve seems like a bad idea, and raiding Home Fleet for SD's, BC's and escorts to send out as reinforcements also does not make too much sense, I realize it has been done but doing something repeatedly and for good reason does not necessarily mean it stops being a bad idea.

Also when I refer to Aircraft Carriers and Fighters I am referring to the relationship between the carrier and its aircraft or in the case of LAC's the carrier and its LAC's. I am using fighters as a generic term for the aircraft of the carrier, I know its wrong and from this point on I'll try to remember to refer to them as simply aircraft. It is true that a CLAC could drop off its LAC's in a system with an ammunition ship and leave them there but then again a Japanese Helicopter Destroyer can drop off its aircraft on land as long as they drop off ammunition and fuel stores.

Please forgive my boldness.

I personally recognize, acknowledge and have no problem with this, and tried to point it out in the succeeding post.