@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
But if you wish to dispute Gould's own summation maybe Im not the one with any "comprehension issues"
. You seem to be getting more and more strident and insulting with your replies and contributions.
"Insulting?" Sorry if you feel "insulted," but I was trying to be as polite as possible without lying.
If I wanted you insult you I would have put the truth more bluntly. I might have said...
Aww, well, I still won't say it. The fact remains: You either don't actually read what you claim to, or else you are just incapable of understanding plain, simple, unambiguous english.
You don't need to read. You already know what everything you read is going to say. It's going to say what you want it to say. Which is, coincidentally, what YOU would say.
