I never thought you were angry, per se. I wasn't even annoyed until the end (After the insinuation that I omitted things I did get a bit peeved). I wasn't confused whether it was known whether OP stuttered or knew what stuttering is. I was confused by the logic in why it mattered whether OP stuttered or not. If you weren't sure s/he stuttered why question the advice for toastmasters so strongly in the first place? I don't need a response I'm simply clarifying where my confusion was. I don't think your broken leg analogy quite works intellectually. Change it to an altered gait (e.g., limp) and I could get on board. Anyway, I think I've exhausted my part in this thread.