You seem to be getting really excited about this. In your excitement you are elaborating on what I said in words as if I said it. I think you are protesting too much and avoiding the points I questioned.
The "agenda" spoken of appears to be an "education" of the Southern people. As I said, just because we don't say something is something doesn't mean we don't understand it to be something. Did you know, not that it would make any difference, that the building we remember as "Secession Hall" was before that great event named "St. Andrew's Hall?" That would be home for the St. Andrew's Society of Charleston. That would be in 1860.
"Lastly, Madaus is from Wisconsin. He also has a very sick sense of humor, which if you knew the guy, you would understand. We did not establish a dress code for the biographers on the Flags of the Confederacy website - and if you seek to denigrate the excellent information on that site simply because he is wearing that uniform, then you indeed do yourself a serious disservice as any type of flag historian!!!! The only other advice I would offer is not to look at his picture."
If that's humor, it's definitely sick, and I guess I just can't appreciate sick yankee humor in a field of which I hold such respect. I actually think you are underplaying the visuals of the photo in an attempt to underplay the agenda. I think that "Flags of the Confederacy" is a very thorough and well put together site, the best on the web regarding Confederate flags. You're putting bad words in my mouth in saying that I am denigrating the site. I only suspect the agendas of those who attempt to relegate the symbolism of the Confederate colours to mere abstractions that are designed with no other motive than making it visible on the battle field.
I'm going to bow out of this string now. You obviously have the adulation of the board members. I'm sorry I can't make it unanimous.