I apologize if you saw that as rude, it was not intended as such. As I mentioned on the talk page I felt it a measured response to your 'include everyone associated with PNAC "no ifs, ands, or buts"'. I am sure more than one editor has pointed out to you that your and Collect's interactions are toxic on this article - I do understand your frustration but, to an extent, I understand his as well. I apologize if I misconstrued the situation. I tend to get less wordy and more direct as I become comfortable working with people, that can make me more blunt as well.You are correct, the SYNTH claim is silly. My concern is sourcing, in particular sourcing beyond what got the ~'List of people who signed a letter or attended an event' in the article at first and your statement made me fear that was where you were going. I was also concerned about using people who had only signed one letter. Your Energy and Empire draws a direct link between those signers and positions in the Administration so my concern arising from that Iraq letter is greatly diminished. As to the forced title I have no objection to something like 'Members of PNAC involved in the Bush Administration'. My concern is that the in the current environment we would likely end up in a month long debate about who were 'Members of PNAC' and what constituted the 'Administration'. To be clear, I have no objection to including Presidential Advisors in the list.