Replies

I'd ask you to provide a post number to support the above statement but you cannot. The statement to which you refer was made as a general comment in post 32.

You were responding to one of the comments I have made, in which I stated that I believe that it is partly genetic and partly environmental. Therefore, you were attacking a strawman.

And from there you've been pushing obfuscation.

And you have been pushing the word 'obfuscation'.

Apparently you're more interested in pushing obfuscation and not talking about anything specific.

If you do come forward with something specific, I'll respond to it. Interested in becoming a part of my bet with the gentlewoman on this thread?

Please don't freepmail me. If you have questions then ask them here.

My, my, you really dislike me, don't you? My question was what 'agenda' I'm supposedly pushing. You really believe that, or are you merely using it as a means to discredit people who don't agree with you?

You were responding to one of the comments I have made, in which I stated that I believe that it is partly genetic and partly environmental.

Yes, I was responding to one of your comments, that much is true. What isn't true and is obvious for all to see is that I wasn't responding to the comment you reference above. And all anybody has to do is read post 32 and the post to which I replied to see your obfuscation for what it is.

Your continued failure to reference specific flaws in anything I've posted is quite telling.