Reply #58: Most informed persons will rightly infer that the "threat" RS wrote

[sojourner]

about was the possibility of litigation -- an action that follows non-compliance with a cease and desist order. As others here have already stated, there is an actual legal definition for a cease and desist order, and a historical sense of the meaning; the Poster might do well to refer to such before making serious accusations.

To demand literal explanations and substantiation of EVERY statement made in print belies a pessimistic and antagonist viewpoint, in my view. To meet such a "standard" would require print articles to be exceedingly long and difficult to read after wading through all the "proofs" -- much like reading a scholarly journal article in which every term is defined to death and every reference to a concept duly noted.

Also, sounds to me as though RS tried to be accomodating with Poster's assertions until they realized that the Poster was in error, and corrected their course accordingly (a day or two later). Sour grapes, maybe?