No, muffin: "ugly" would be to accuse you either of intellectual inadequacy (in not being swift enough to grasp what is plainly written), or else lying outright (in intentionally misrepresenting same).
Granting the possibility that you may simply be in hysterics, on the other hand, spares you from being tarred as either a mope or a fraud. You're entirely welcome, of course.
Charles admits readily that there could be problems
As there very well might be, obviously. Obviously didn't change one jot or tittle of his final analysis, however, did it? Hmmmmmmmmm...?
My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that
Your original "point," such as it is, is bucktoothed. He already does know, as the article has long since rendered concrete.
Read my posts in the forum.
You'll be waiting a good, long-ish while before stumbling across anyone caring less about your other postings hereabout than I, kiddo... and: they're wildly irrelevant, in any case. It's within this thread that you've plainly decided to have your little tantrum, after all.
I'll wait. And then expect an apology.
Make certain to move your legs, every few hours. It'll help prevent cobwebs.
Can't be bothered to read my posts to see how intellectual dishonest you are that I'm hardly in the grip of hysteria? Good to know what kind of poster you are. Not wanting to be bothered with the facts is usually a Democrat tactic.
LOL. Having gotten this far into this thread I can tell you this, it is not Peach who is having a tantrum.