"So you made a faulty assumption that cost me unjustifiable time & energy to correct, & your reaction is: I have no idea what youre now arguing about.?"I thought this was cleared up all the way back in post 116.
"Of course if youd been that lucid, Id have responded, What makes you assume that? Callis is not the vet referred to in the Smithsonian article."Gayle, the vet histologist, is referred to in the Smithsonian article - along with the unnamed vet pathologist.
"So you didnt think it was Gayle after all; you thought it was a pathologist. You cant keep your stories straight long enough to even cover your screw ups."Huh? When did I ever say or suggest that it was Gayle that identified the red blood cell remains?
“If it’s not the pathologist, than what other vet could you possibly mean but Gayle?”
If you are still this clueless then it’s not communication skills you lack. It is rudimentary reading comprehension at which you fail.