I really do not want to get into an argument here, but Jay's claim, that all he is doing is asking questions is a bit disengenuous. A quick (very quick) review of only his first two posts yielded these lines:
"If, on the other hand, I invest what I can in Azo, I know I'll have an excellent paper with which to work while this whole replacement scheme plays out."
Note the word "schemes." This is not, nor ever has been a scheme. It is attempt to resurrect a silver chloride paper.
And there is this one:
"Do you feel that betting on the future of a potentially inferior product is more prudent than securing a supply of a known product for personal use?"
Note his phrase, "potentially inferior product." He assumes that the new product will be inferior.
These two quote alone show that Jay's comments are not emotionally neutral, but show negativity and nastiness. What I call passive-aggressive. His questioning is not disinterested questioning, which, of course, is very reasonable.
If readers here do not see that, they are not reading very carefully.
Regarding " potentially inferior product." The replacement paper for Azo will in no way be inferior than Azo. If anything, it wil be better. if it is inferior, this paper will not come to the market and everyone's money will be returned.