Caradea, you tell me you do not want us to see the hurtful PM's, and then tell Dickens the matter should be dismissed because the PM's are not before us. You seem to want to have it both ways.
BTW, the PM's have been omitted to date because of the practical concerns and senstitivity that faldage discussed. But by common law the PM's would be fully disclosable: if you want to make legal rules decisive here, you cannot object to publishing the PM's.

[Caradea: "WHOOPS! mea culpa, Keiva. i honestly had no idea that the laws in Illinois ... were ..."[/Caradea] Caradea, please note that I neither agreed nor disagreed with either your law or its relevance here; I left it for you to support your own views. Again, please do not misrepresent what I -- or stales -- have said.