They are coming from different perspectives and having what looks for all the world like an honest debate. Eeeegads, imagine that.
I'm not looking to prove evolution wrong, I'm not looking for its worst proponents, I'm looking for the best, and none of them address the best arguments of the ID side. At least not that I've found.
So at that time, I had no reason to be disrespectful
From the available evidence, you don't give the appearance of a person who can tell when they are being disrepectful. I commented, quite reasonably, on a pointer--given to me by you--to an explanation, by the author, of what is in the book. And in response, I commented upon it, and gave you, I thought, quite clear and detailed reasons, which I don't recall you particularly responding to, why I wouldn't be reading it, addressing what appears to be the central technical point of the argument, as explained by the author.
It appears to me to be the case that you vouchsafed an argument from the book, I explained in fairly concrete terms why the arguement is not considered new, or pursuasive by me, or the biological science community, and I don't recall seeing a detailed counterargument--just the annoying contention that if I don't read this book cover to cover, I've, in some vague manner, become intellectually dishonest.
If you think this book provides a telling counterargument, than let's hear it, if not, then let's not be mistaking nebulous allegations of intellectual impropriety regarding my not jumping thru whatever time-consuming hoops you raise for me to jump through, for a technically sound argument.