FPB, the entire point of contention is this: you two say he has said X, and that X is wrong; yet you never quote him saying "X"--a very important thing when you're talking about a text-based statement--so much as say "well, I view the fact that he said X as an abomination unto my history, because QZY."

I doubt there is a thinking being *breathing* that doubts your views; I am simply pushing for you to use the skills you've shown before and do a half-way decent argument against the precise words!

It's the same way that I can't stand "Christian" cartoons-- not because I object to the message or the medium, but because they're so poorly done, compared to what they could be.

It must be some flaw in how I am trying to explain it, because you're simply *not* stupid-- your posts would not convince anyone who did not already agree with you; your format assumes the reader has the same view; you're not arguing or persuading, you're shoring up a perspective that must already exist.

I'm at wits end, here! Your posts object to things I am not saying, and it seems that what you read is not what I write; I've seen this in verbal conversations, but never in text. (barring the occasional troll who is pulling an O'Reilly)