I read the letters section from time to time and I have found some improvement in the level of debating. Recently, however, I have followed the back and forth 'debate' between el-Wirshiffani and Hakim. Even, though I did not agree much with Mr. Hakim and did not like his style of obvious and some time subtle sarcasm but he managed to put clearly the points he was debating about. The ideas and questions he has are very clear. Whether we agree with him or not, that is another point. I liked some of the responses that focused on the issue of the debate without attacking Hakim himself. Then, there was Mr. el-Wirsheffani. It is very clear that he is very passionate about Islam and that is his absolute right. However, when it comes to what he writes, it is very vague. I do not see in logic in his writings. He focuses on title words, on the language, on attacking and threatening Mr. Hakim. I am not really sure of what he is trying to accomplish. To make things worse, I came to realize that he is studying for his PhD and understanding the rules of debate is at the core of writing a thesis for PhD.