Finally you are catching on. My responses to both of you do not fit the model I set forth, because both of you were the original attackers, neither of you responded to the arguments in the thread, and neither of you posted a well thought out argument. So when someone criticizes me for a structural as opposed to a substantive "error", they have reset the rules of the game, and should not whine because I throw it right back in their faces.
I know you want to believe you are thinking logically, but you have violated a number of the rules of logic. Several of you initiated ad hominem attacks, you in particular are guilty of moving the goalpost, arguing by gibberish, arguing by changing the facts, pigheadedness, arguing the same thing ad nauseum, using selective observation, using this red herring to change the discussion, and a few more to boot.
So if you actually want to learn something about debate and logic, first try and understand yourself and what your motives are. If you spent half as much time researching the topic of the thread, which I assume you agree with, you might actually be able to put on a fairly reasoned debate. As it is, you are merely pi$$ing on the fringe of the topic hoping to leave some lasting impression, by splattering all those you can't effectively argue with.
As I said before, bottom feeders galore here on FR.