We did not intend to cause harm or offend in any way. We wanted to share experience with what we know to be a valuable option for a real health. We respect everyone's feelings and judgments; we're not here to solicitate/manipulate/convince anybody. If you or anybody else doesn't like our posts, you don't have to read them, but to flag someone without any comment/suggestion/communication/discussion/notice is not an honorable way to interface with a community that is supposed to be a non-censored, free market platform. If you had some sort of justified reason for our post being "inappropriate" or "bad", if you would have made helpful suggestions or asked a question, we could have had a civil discussion on the matter, and one of us might have been able to learn something, and we could have been grateful for it. But instead, you chose to flag us without any discussion, which gives us justification to flag any if not all of your posts--and where does that leave us? As we suggest in this situation, inquiry, noble suggestion, or constructive criticism would be welcome and appreciation. Further, if there is discussion, realistically other people will have input. There can be a council of others with different perspectives! Then, there's even more scope, and if there's a whole group of respectable 3rd parties that are all agreeing with one side, then that's as close to true consensus as you'll come to when you have a group of peers, A group of 3rd parties can be the closest to come to Truth as you're gonna find. In conclusion, what we're saying is that if there's any kind of disagreement, the only honorable thing is to discuss it, rather than revert to flag wars, except in extreme circumstances...which this obviously is not.