Cobguy, this is a gentle and affectionate criticism. You said that those who smoked it weren't representing anything close to Pipesmoking. Of course, we have to define Pipesmoking. At its simplest level, a working definition might include placing tobacco in a pipe, igniting it, etc. We could refine that definition somewhat. But if you want to refine it to the point of excluding a particular tobacco, I would take exception to that. If you wanted to say that you can tolerate neither the taste nor the aroma of a particular tobacco, that would be your right. If you said that smoking a particular tobacco, or even being in close proximity to someone who smokes it makes you ill, so be it. You are the sole judge of what you enjoy..or dislike and you have every right to your feelings in that regard. What I took exception to was your statement in which you said that those who smoked the tobacco in question were not representing Pipesmoking. If they were not representing it, then what were they doing? Misrepresenting it? Or underrepresenting it? See what I mean? Had you said that you didn't care for the tobacco, that would be your right, one that the rest of us are bound to respect. But you made a statement about those who smoked it, and I found that troubling, not least because I recently tried it, and though aromatics have not been high on my list of preferred tobaccos, I tried this blend and found it quite pleasing. Now it isn't what I regularly smoke, but I find it a nice change of pace from my straight Virginias, my tobacco of choice these days. I would hate to think, however, that I and others who smoke MD were somehow not representing Pipesmoking, let alone anything close to it.
Flame away.