If 80% of the board is not familiar with the BadaBing story then that 80% has no idea what was even meant by my "soprano discount" comment. So what are you so upset about? As for the other 20%, who ARE familiar with that old story, probably everyone except for you could see the humor in my remark. All that the 20% means is that it is what is known as an "inside joke". You have heard of those, haven't you? I'll admit that how frequent a joke it might be could be questioned but it is hardly uncommon.
And as for the inclusion of

emoticon hardly masking my "true intention". A) How do you presume to know my true intention any more than I could presume to know your intention for promoting Dr. Chen so vigorously? Do you want to talk about being hypocritical. And B) if it didn't mask anything and was so irrelevant then why did you choose to selectively omit it when you were quoting me?
Re: your analogy to political tickery. Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about or see any comparison, mainly because there was never anything for me to retract. I stand completely by my original comments as they were really intended. If anyone will remember the "scurrilous charge" (as you call it), it will only be because you provided YOUR interpretation of what was meant by it and then made such a big deal about it. BTW, another type political trickery is taking something someone says and spinning it so it sounds like he is saying the exact opposite, which is what you're doing with me.
I NEVER said or even IMPLIED you were taking bribes and never even privately considered that as a real possibility. For YOU to say I specifically did requires you to KNOW my intent, which you CAN'T. I've since provided a very plausible alternate explanation of what I really meant, which was NOTHING at all. I simply made a JOKE, mocking you alittle bit perhaps, but still just a joke. If you continue to not believe me when I say that, then that is YOUR problem not mine, but I was not being disingenuous when I say I'm sorry you have such problems understanding any of this. Like you say, maybe someday you will.
YOU chose to INTERPRET my comment the way you did and to take it too seriously. How does saying that reinforce anyone else's understanding of my "true" intent other than for you? Now, your logical reasoning. I suggest you study the difference between "imply" and "infer". One indicates the intent of the speaker. The other refers to the interpretation by the listener. The person making the error here is definitely the latter.
Re: my additionaly reference to Badabing. A) as before, my only reference to Badabing is to say you're NOT anywhere near him in number of posts. And B) this time I even deliberately and specifically say I'm NOT insinuating anything and yet YOU still insist I am. How much clearer do I have to make it? So how does that attempt to show any sort of "unholy alliance" between you and Dr. Chen like he had with the Morazon?
OTOH, the number of posts you've made on Chen IS highly notable and does suggest that you must really really like this guy. I really like eating at Mariscar and have recommended it to others, but you don't see me making over 2 dozen posts about it. In fact, you don't usually see anyone else on this board other than yourself making that many posts about just one place or service. That implies to me, excuse me, I infer from that your appreciation of this guy goes beyond the norm. Again, by saying this I'm NOT implying any sinister ulterior motive on your part. I completely take you at your word that your only motive is that you like the guy, are happy with his work and want to help him and others out by steering them his way. And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm happy for you. I'm just tired of hearing about it so many times when I believe just as passionately that it is a bum steer.
You ask what is wrong with recommending someone you like? By itself? nothing at all. That is completely your right just as, like you acknowledged, it is my right and the rights of everyone else here to express their opinions as well. However, the sheer number of times you've recommended this guy is also a relevant and valid issue, because it can have the effect of drowning out those countervailing views and making it SEEM like the guy is more universally admired then he might really be. If there is any sinister ulterior motive, then that is it, but that suggests that you're even aware of what you're doing which I don't think you are. I think it is that you're simply intolerant of anyone who has views different from your own. Any way, THAT is why I brought up the subject of the number of your posts (as well as the obviously hyperbolic joke comparing it to Badabing, who was known for his volume of posts as much as his shilling). To counterbalance with one long post what you've posted in dozens.
There are some who did not find Dr Chen to provide the quality of service that you say he can be relied upon to provide. Are they a minority? Perhaps. Clearly? Not that clear. They're at the very least a sizable and statistically significant minority. You're correct that it is rare that a medical professional has a 100% approval rating. But most of us prefer to go to one that is as close to that as possible. There is a big difference between 99% and 90% when one is talking about one's health. How many of the active posters on this board have gone to Dr. Chen and written about it? There have been only 112 posts (a little bit more now). A sizable chunk of that has been repeat posts by you. There have also been a smaller number of repeat posts by myself and a few others. And much of the rest has been by members who hadn't been to him but were asking for more info. So the sample pool is very small but much larger (and random) than the 3 repeat (and thus more likely loyal Chen followers) that you "surveyed". Let's say a dozen guys have been to Chen and reported back on their experiences and lets suppose that most of those guys reported back favorably or at least neutrally (meaning they weren't necessarily aware of any problems with his service YET). At least one of the initially "favorables" (scubabum), came back later and reported serious problems that weren't immediately apparent when he posted his initial positive review. And without doing an exact count, at LEAST 3-4 members out of the presumed dozen, reported unfavorable. Is that a minority? Of course. Is it statistically a larger number than I'd recommend chancing on a major dental procedure? And it is a large enough percentage that I wouldn't try to squelch the reports or else pooh pooh them like they didn't mean anything at all and try to make them sound like that they were just the typical rare problems that even the best doctors get.