For once, I am listening to the voice in my head telling me to keep my post on topic, and not to revisit, at length, the "friction/intensity" argument. OK, whew, that was hard.

What I will say is just this: Only Steven knows whether in his heart, he intends to offend with some of his posts, and it is up to each person to decide for themselves if they are offended, or if he is arrogant. What else can really be said about that, other than opinion and angry replies?
I hope that I can offer my take on the stag issue, even though I didn't make the list.
When Dave Ellis mentioned that he believes the amber stag Loveless' sell for more, I became fairly sure that my first instinct was accurate, which is that what collectors ultimately want in the end, is a good looking knife, if the stag looks good to a majority of seasoned collectors, then it really doesn't matter if it is amber dyed or not, but, it seems to be the case, that it is more likely that a treated/dyed piece of stag will look good to more people, than a completely undyed, natural piece, therefore, every piece of stag and it's overall contribution, or lack thereof to the aesthetic value of the particular knife, needs to be evaluated on it's own merits, and the only generalization that can be made is that typically, all else being equal, a piece of stag that has been dyed to some degree, will look nicer than one that has not been treated or dyed.
I have seen some incredible amber stag on Ron Newton's hunters, and on several makers' work, but the number of nice looking untreated stag handles I have seen are few and far between, so, for me, it depends on the form and figure of the stag, first and foremost, and if the stag looks even nicer with a touch of color, I'm all for it. If it's the kind of piece of stag that for some reason just looks nicer undyed, and it just goes better with the overall knife, that's good too.
aRi (The R is for retarded)