------------
What I suggest is that you study the work in its entirity and its integration into the whole rather than read a few sentences and rush back here eager to spout off.
Might I also suggest your insistance that I am operating from hypothetical habit or instinct that is convenient for purposes of your argument is quite presumptous. You have no idea what my habits are or ever have been. Your attempts to to be a psychiatrist suggest you shouldn't quit your daytime job.
Zola doesn't have my work reviewed by othere. I do. As far as what other people or quality of work he has there at the sites I write for, I am not responsible and frequently don't even know about it. I often don read the issues that come out unless I have articles in them. I have no interest in some of the other views that are written there just as I have no interest in many of the people or views that occur at this site. To be frank, some of what I see here is disgusting. The same is true elsewhere.
This comes down to the old question of, "What if everybody did that?"
Even Tolstoy managed to cram War and Peace into a mere 692 pages. Couldn't you have gotten an editor or something? Free Republic would be a pretty dead place if everybody kept 1200 pages of stuff on a web site somewhere, and demanded that other people read all of it before they can discuss anything. That's just ridiculous, so stop it.
I did not "psychoanalyze" you. I merely pointed out that your argument in Section 10 is a variation on the age-old White Knight to Queen's Rook gambit, and that it was therefore an example of the very thing you were decrying. I did offer instinct and habit as possible explanations for your behavior, and perhaps that was speculative, but the alternatives appear to be more damning.
I noticed that in another note, you were quick to distance yourself from the Orlin Grabbe site when it was pointed out that the site is currently featuring a photo of some attractive young ladies strutting their stuff. You have nothing to do with that, you don't approve of it, and you don't want to be tarred with it.
Fair enough, but then how do you justify bundling all men into a class associated with Playboy magazine and Hugh Hefner? At its height, Playboy had a circulation of about 7 million, a tiny fraction of the adult male population. Tens of millions of men had nothing to do with Playboy and didn't even know that Hefner was spouting something called "The Playboy Philosphy." I think you're trying to have it both ways here. You want to tie the adult male population to Playboy magazine, but if anyone does the same thing to you, that's an outrage. That act is not real persuasive.