Can you be specific as to what he said that was more reasoned and informed and how my response didn't measure up.
Otherwise I would suggest that you refrain from engaging in a battle of wits when it is evident that you are unarmed.
Hmmm. This comment, at best, seems to be somewhat inconsistent with your other comment, I would take that a step furthur and say that the one who first resorts to name calling and demeaning attacks is likely the one most in the wrong.
.Whatever.
1. Lives in Texas and stays fairly abreast of what goes on there
2. I said I was familiar with his posts, not only here but in other settings as well for well over a year and know that he doesn't make uninformed arguments; quite the contrary, he researches the information he posts very well
3. You kept calling his responses stupid and unintelligent, but you pointed out no specific instance in which he was in error
4. He gave sources to substantiate his arguments, and unless I missed something, you did not.
5. As far as my last remark, learn to define your terms. I didn't call names or make a personal attack, and even if you consider it as such, it APPEARS to ME that YOU were the FIRST to make an attack, albeit not against me. That said I ask you to take a look at these two statements:
a) it is EVIDENT that you are unarmed
b) it is OBVIOUS that you are unarmed
See the difference? Let's see if he does his homework. :-)