Ok Steve... you have gone back and edited qualified your own remarks in bold type to show once and for all that you are always clear and precise, while I (and others) just fail to read and comprehend the fuller implications of your remarks. ... and you rest your case.

I spent a long time on that post and all you did is read it with your own agenda at the forefront of your mind. If you can't accept that I think you misread, well that's tough luck, I'm afraid.

What can I possible say in the face of such forthright finality? Perhaps: "yes, Socrates...quite so, Socrates..."

Forthright patience, more like, in the face of a wilful misinterpreter.

I'll say one thing further, Steve. While I disagree with Pete, with 'guestlexic' and with many others, I have never seen the value in demeaning and insulting them. When they fail to rise to your high standards of discourse, you resort to 'wacko jacko' terminology. You were beyond rude with Pete.

Jack's post was a return to form after months of our avoiding conflict. Too bad. He made an offensive, patronising and groundless remark about my scientific background. Pete insults the whole of the scientific community with almost every post he makes. He is wilfully ignorant and he deserves all the flak he gets. This world would be a horrible place if people of his ilk had power. You indulge him and patronise him, and, arguably, give him the kind of succour that makes him even worse.

If someone is worth answering at all, they are worth being answered politely and without name calling. If you decide they cannot be debated fairly, I'd suggest you not bother. I kind of like my own advice in that regard, so rather than descending to that level..... goodbye.

You sure kind of like the sound of your own voice. Thank you for the lecture. If that little "goodbye" means I won't hear another, good.