Doctor X

Haran:

Understood, though the recommendation to make an argument without invective remains.

Also, yes it is difficult if not irritating to "re-invent the wheel" on a web-page--just listen to the bowels clench across cyberspace when someone posts that "Moses wrote the OT" or "there is more proof of Junior's miracles than the existence of Babe Ruth." However, if one takes a controversial opinion--and his is--one must be prepared to defend it. I recommended a peer reviewed journal since it would save him the time of reinvention and serve as a rather good hurdle.

Celsus:

I call no one "names" but I must note that it would have proven more persuasive if you had admonished the one who actually started "calling names."

Now . . . someone cue the violins. . . .

I merely recognized that with the individual's action I would not have to deal with an individual that behaves as an immature knave. Granted, perchance that is a bit redundant. If one does not wish to be recognized as such then one should learn to behave with some maturity.

Various appeals to pity and "injur'd merit" follow.

I will note that my question remained unanswered. Apparently only invective is all this individual has to offer other than appeals to his ego; contribution of "positive and productive stuff" continues to escape him. It does not have to be that way. He could try curbing the invective and fallacy.

Miss him I shall not.

--J.D.