Replies

Incidentally, Grey, I reviewed every one of my posts on this thread and did not find any comments that could I would consider argument ad hominem against our resident practitioner of that art... did you find any?

I just went line by line through every post of yours on this thread. The only thing which could even be MISTAKEN for personal animus was #250:

If you cannot move beyond your ONE discredited source, you are willfully ignorant of the facts.

and #261: I submit you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You have heard and repeated something that is untrue.

and #284:

I also find it amusing you criticized someone for apparently using Wikipedia as an authoritative source and you are doing the same thing...

and #293:

His mind is made up... and it is locked like a bank vault. His science (as is his mentor;s Schafersman)

Rather thin gruel for someone accusing you of ad hominem.

I as usual was far more crass, as I tolerate fools gladly but have far less patience for what looks like dishonesty.

The proof is left as an exercise for the interested reader.

Cheers!