**Bill Gates lawyers decided they'd get in trouble for holding me.....**

(Clinton...where do I send the 50¢ I promised for making ME look like a relatively good guy?)

LH...I hope you don't really believe I am trying to prove anything.

one....more...time... Almost my ONLY claims are about bad and irrelevant arguments and specious resoning. Note my first post in this thread:
""...known to be associated with..." is a biased statement on the face of it. "claimed to be associated" is at least 'formally' honest."

I respond to both implicit & explicit claims. When someone states "...known to be associated with..." they are implying that any reasonable person 'ought' to see that association and thus grasp the 'truth' that those wise folks have so laboriously worked out for centuries!

As we have heard, *daylia*, the most vocal of the proponents in the thread DOES specifically and directly claim that she "knows" and that we who doubt are some combination of ignorant, inexperienced, biased and snide.

You, LH, regularly make other statements that read LIKE claims...then sometimes sidestep and say "no one has to agree if they don't want to"....thanks a bunch...*wry grin*...We snide & biased folks with our blind spots and tricky rhetoric sure appreciate the release from THAT obligation.

Really and truly....all I am doing....my ONLY wish...is to see the argument/debate carried on without dubious claims, bad reasoning and character assassination when disagreement results. As I posted in response to your prodding questions, I am concerned that alternate opinions appear when dubious claims are made...and that it is clear WHERE the crux of the debate lies. (This is almost always the hardest point to make!)

I repeat, I don't expect to have someone who is ^{up to here} in these beliefs change their minds because I poke at their methods and defense. But if I can inject ANY note of concern for what really passes for validation and even statistical support for a claim, then I will be, if not satisfied, at least relieved.