>I have no opinion on Mexico and I have no basis for concurring with what confluence wrote.
>you have written self-contradictory statements that are not strong rebuttals to the points I made.
Maybe if you did indeed have some opinion on and knowledge of the subject matter at hand you would see the sense in what I am trying to say, and be willing to cut me a little slack. Work with me not against me as they say. Oh well.
>you know nothing about my reading habits
But I do know a bit about your analytical and argumentative style, which seems, based on what I have observed, to be rigid. Reading is one of the best ways I know to soften such a trait, hence the suggestion.
Anyway, you're right that it's time to wrap this up. Sorry, really didn't set out to attack you here, but I think both you and confluence are being a bit... well, for lack of a better word, silly. However it is interesting, as I've suggested already, in the normal world an article like this wouldn't raise an eyebrow, so it's fun to try and defend something perfectly normal from an extraordinary critique. I enjoyed the exercise, even if you think my logic is rubbish :)
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt because this is the internet and it is very difficult to judge one's own written tone, but I hope you'll reread what you have written to see why it makes you come off as a deeply arrogant person. You seem not to have read at all what I have written; you appear to think that I was engaged in criticizing the article. You also continue this nonsense about reading that can only have the effect of being insulting.
>you have written self-contradictory statements that are not strong rebuttals to the points I made.
Maybe if you did indeed have some opinion on and knowledge of the subject matter at hand you would see the sense in what I am trying to say, and be willing to cut me a little slack. Work with me not against me as they say. Oh well.
>you know nothing about my reading habits
But I do know a bit about your analytical and argumentative style, which seems, based on what I have observed, to be rigid. Reading is one of the best ways I know to soften such a trait, hence the suggestion.
Anyway, you're right that it's time to wrap this up. Sorry, really didn't set out to attack you here, but I think both you and confluence are being a bit... well, for lack of a better word, silly. However it is interesting, as I've suggested already, in the normal world an article like this wouldn't raise an eyebrow, so it's fun to try and defend something perfectly normal from an extraordinary critique. I enjoyed the exercise, even if you think my logic is rubbish :)