[gusopol3]

post #54, totally independently of me, makes the very same point— your argument are propagandistic and bombastic, then when you’re confronted, you withdraw to the position of the wounded academic who is being pilloried for his superior knowledge.

[bdeaner]

post #54, totally independently of me, makes the very same point— your argument are propagandistic and bombastic, then when you’re confronted, you withdraw to the position of the wounded academic who is being pilloried for his superior knowledge.

I'll tell you what. I am going to assume from this point on, in good faith, that you are interested in the truth of the issues of concern here, and I am going to assume, in good faith, that you wish to engage in a reasonable dicussion of these issues. Irregardless of what has happened in this conversation up until this point. I ask you to do the same--that you start with the assumption that I am operating in good faith--, so that we can move forward rather than dwelling on a fruitless argument about who said what to whom. Let's try to stick to the facts. Are you with me, or not?