Replies

"So you made a faulty assumption that cost me unjustifiable time & energy to correct, & your reaction is: “I have no idea what you’re now arguing about.”?"

I thought this was cleared up all the way back in post 116.
Why you're still going on about it in post after post and wasting your own time and energy, I have no idea (well, I do have an idea, but I won't mention it out of courtesy.)
If you were still confused about it after 116, it's due to your own lack of communication skills.

"Of course if you’d been that lucid, I’d 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.

And the reason why I thought you were referring to Gayle is because when I mentioned that it was a pathologist that first suggested that the remains were those of red blood cells, you replied:
"Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells."

If it's not the pathologist, than what other vet could you possibly mean but Gayle? It was because of your error that I thought you were referring to Gayle.

"So you didn’t think it was ‘Gayle’ after all; you thought it was a pathologist. You can’t 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?
Again, I don't think I'm the one here with the communication issues.

“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.