I claimed no such thing.
Calumny, intended or not, is funny, so long as it is directed against Rome?
I wasn't being funny.
My apologies for the comment on humor—I had somehow thought that 350 was yours, and it was not. My bad.
As your post 372 is a response to 334, and shows agreement with 334, I would assume that you read 334. My 373, to which you respond in 433, asks you to consider 346.
I errored in stating that you claimed to have read the posts that you responded to, but it might be reasonably infered from the fact that you were responding that you had read them, and given that you claim in 433 that your response is learned, that you stand by your original conclusion in 372.
The analysis in 346 destroyed the argument put forth in 334. No rebuttal offered, and frankly, no rebuttal possible.
If 334 is your idea of reality, your term in 372, your reality needs to undergo examination. That said, my apologies for confusing 372 with 350.