"Not at all. I tried to have a dialog. The response is incoherent and irrelevant to anything I said."
Once again Paul Ross beat me to the punch (Post 623). I agree with everything he said. He hits you with a solid logic and irrefutable fact barrage so large you don't know what to do with it.
I had an exchange with A.Pole. In one of the posts, he attributed our prosperity to the Constitution, and I pointed out that it is only very, very indirectly correct, if at all. In that same post, A.Pole smeared "Chicago" and "Harvard" economists in one stroke --- which makes one wonder who is judging them. So I asked (not completely rhetorically) whether A.Pole actually read any research papers by those economists or attended their seminars (this is a diverse board, who knows, (s)he mights be a professional economist).
At this point Paul Ross butts in, focusing on my last remark and calling is self-aggrandizeing or something to that effect. With name-calling fallowing shortly. After a few posts, I stopped dignifying him with replies.
Now, if you think that such level of dialog is appropriate, then shame on you: anyone smart enough to know something about neutron decay should have higher scientific standards.