Am I right in saying that the gap between the highly articulate, persuasive, logical strategies and philosophies of TWEBX and what the fund has delivered over the past five years redefine and expand "yawning chasm?"

The oft-repeated, self-congratulatory - and exceptionally well-written material - about participating in neither the unjustified rise or the subsequent plunge of high-tech stocks was one thing. But since then, TWEBX has been a paragon of medocrity in a field of much better performing value funds - over half of them, right? If I'm wrong (been known to happen), please explain. Right now, I'm thinking these two grades: (1) A+ for writing style, financial sophistication and reasons for great hope, and (2) D, or being generous to a San Andreas-size fault, C, for performance. Wouldn't mind inarticulate and the top half of performers.