Well, Teribus, I simply do NOT have time this week to tear apart your critique(s) of my opinion. The short version is...you continuously re-frame what I say to sound weak & awkward & uninformed, then reply to assertions I did NOT make. This is a pretty old technique, and I have to admit, you do it better than most. (one example - "Your solution in the face of a declared threat appears to be to basically sit back and wait for the attack to come." No, that is NOT implied by what I said...but it does assume that there will BE a serious attack - something I tended to doubt in the first place. We can disagree whether it is likely or not, but you can't USE it to knock down my position.


One of the things it does is put ME in the position of having to type twice as much as you to answer you by saying "That is NOT what I said" and then to clarify what I said, then to dispute what YOU seem to be saying.

You make statements that are phrased to sound like obviously truths, but which are merely linking YOUR interpretation to half-truths. I don't don't care to struggle with that way of arguing.

Somewhere in there are just points on which we flatly differ,(beyond matters of 'fact'), and perhaps it's best to just leave it at that.