Let's just be clear, Ed. Nothing I say is going to be greeted by you as well reasoned. Argee's claim that I responded to in #180 sounded irrationally conspiratorial to me and I stated so. You apparently took that as a denigration even though it wasn't.
"
Argee's claim that I responded to in #180 sounded irrationally conspiratorial to me and I stated so."
Oh, I see. When you said "You are really looking through a delusional and conspiratorial set of lenses. It's almost amuzing", it sounded just like something a homosexual activist or apologist would say. For a moment there, I thought you were toeing the homosexual-agenda party line instead of engaging in "independent thinking". My misunderstanding.