I know what you're saying guys, and I do agree, but how do you not reply to a post like the one above? It's ridiculous.
I'll just address one item:
Dave Thinkstoomuch wrote:I have all the proof I need about Buck and if I thought you would bother reading it all (it might take you a couple weeks) I would provide the links. I further suppose you agree that 420HC isn't great steel and just won't voice it because it may be the best hope the american knife industry has of competing price-wise with imports. Comparing 420HC edge 2000 with thicker 440C sharpened at a more obtuse angle is comparing apples to oranges. All it proved was thinner knives cut better. Buck and yourself and lots of folks have drawn a different conclusion. There's my proof. They conned you good.
How could they have conned me if that's exactly what I said above??
"They clearly state that they were proving that the Edge 2000 angle on 420HC could outperform standard edge angles that were being produced at the time on a variety of steels, both by them and other manufacturers. That's why the angles were different, NOT so they could mislead the public." Seems like you basically just rearranged my wording

Edge angles were much more obtuse at the time, and still are from many manufacturers, Buck tried something different. I still don't see the proof, and I'm not talking about a boatload of BFC links either. I've read them all as well and nowhere do any of them prove that Buck intentionally mislead the public. That's
your opinion and hearing anything to the contrary just gets in your craw, doesn't it? Seems confirmation bias describes you to a T.
Now fellas I
am done with this, even if the inevitable reply is fraught with more nastiness

, and I do aplogize for the detour.
Glad I could be of some help Ken!
Eric