Guess what: "No idea" and "I don't know" are both quite simple, wholely accurate*, and at the same time, the most magnificent answers possible.
* (well, they can be, unless you're asking a Dem about the illegal things they've done)
> your inability to see beyond the superficial aspects of the seen, and logically inferred,
Why do you think I have an "inability" here?
>are you insinuating that my questions are ill-thought-out or vague?
Yes, indeed. For example, post 85:
"I have yet to find a single engineer who is able to answer the question: Why?"
"Why?", by itself, is an astonishingly vague question. As such, no answer is appropriate except "because." Every "why" question will have a "because" answer. But what follows *after* "because" is determined by what follows after "why."
> Cynicism does not wear well on the human condition.
Bah.
Delightfully abstruse, yet incapable of giving one's foe credit.
AH, nothing like engineering school, eh? The chicken and the egg. Does the engineering mind come first, or does the school predate the engineer? Could be biblical in it's proportions, yes?
To say that "No idea" and "I don't know" are simple is to belabor the obvious. Magnificent? Not unless you think the Dems did a "magnificent" job in the last election cycle.
As for the "Why" question in post 85: in context it's a carry-on of a thought first posed by you. Taken out of context, and distorted, it becomes a disembodied spirit with no texture or meaning.
You didn't mean to take me out of context, or distort my question, did you?
After all, you and I are in the business of facts, good or bad, aren't we? Men like us should spend little or no time on that which lowers our gentlemanly, rational capacities.
Why? Because.