[Margaret Pilkington]

Really...you have read into the post something which isn't there. People see what they want to see....if you feel outraged by a comment then you will see something sharp even if the poster was NOT intending the response to be sharp...it is your own feelings that cause you to interpret things in this way.
The Internet is a very difficult medium to get across subtle nuances......when the question was asked......was the beer free?
Retlaw came back with a comment which I replied to.
If something is being sold then that is a commercial venture.......what was not clear in either the article in the paper or in the thread, was HOW the venture came about, and How it was being managed.....if you read my response to Dusty Mears in her enlightening thread which documents ALL those things very clearly then you can see that much of this information was missing.
I do not know how you make decisions on things......I make decisions on the information to hand.....if all the information is not there, or the information is skewed(for whatever reason)then it is fair to say that decision made will also be inaccurate.

My REAL concern was that this was an enterprise being undertaken by a large brewer to maximise profits by using the names and images of the men who fought in this conflict, and donating little to the actual cause.
If that makes me contradictory....or seemingly to 'gob off' rubbish.....or be a 'scrimshanker'.....which, by the way is a naval term for someone who shirks their duty(which to anyone who knows me, is ludicrous), then so be it.
As I said in the other thread....had the full information been available then I would have made NO response, other than to say 'well done'......and wish them every success.
Now, that is it from me. I feel I have adequately and accurately outlined my opinion and thoughts on this subject.