There are two points really to what I'm saying to the unknowing readers here.
First, the crafting of your questions/points in the sticky, if answered truthfully, make the point (intended by you or not) that Englishbey has credibility and Richard does not. There's no other way for me to read it. I've been around here for 2+ years so I have a pretty good idea on the history here.
Second, being in a particular hitting camp and being the moderator is a fine line. This hitting section is the most difficult section to moderate on this site because of the continuing arguing among the same people over and over. You choose to jump into the arguments and make points about what you believe, which would be fine if you weren't the moderator. I may be alone in thinking this (and that's fine if so) but when you argue for Englishbey's methods and argue against Richard's methods, being the moderator gives your posts a higher level of credibility to the average reader. Some will assume that since you're the moderator that whatever you're for is good and whatever you're against is bad.
My issue with that is that certain readers may like what you say and move down the road toward an Englishbey swing philosophy. That might serve them well or it might not. But to me, it's more important to look at all possible sources, hittingillustrated.com included. And I don't want any readers discouraged from looking everywhere, including Richard's site.