"My problem with this is that while you say you are not behaving in an antagonistic fashion, you are. And the reason I say that is because it doesn't matter what answer or evidence she provides you...if it's not to YOUR liking then it's not substantial information for you, and then you feel that she can't hold a discussion on the issue."

The idea that Im behaving antagonistically is your opinion and even though you are entitled to that- you're still wrong and since thats my opinion (much less the truth) I have every right to say it. i even have the right to say that the statements expressed in this thread are wrong- the author even admitted it. i didnt do that at first cuz I sincerely wanted to see where she got these ideas. I asked for elaboration- not justification. Justification is what you have asked me for despite your posturing for the sake of humankind and tehir entitlement to speech.

If its not in a book or referrenced somehow in practice then its not substantial- that means that there's nothing I can refer to and come to the specific conclusion. if its a matter of opinion then say so or at least admit it courteously when asked- if you dont then I cant even reference the conclusion that im being asked to make.

If you have a problem with the way I discuss matters then you've had and used the opportunity to address- as such you and I are in the same bout Sparky.

The difference is I asked her to explain herself- whereas you made insulting judgements about my intentions.

either way youve had absolutely nothing to offer this thread or the topic at hand- your posts here have been useless other than to deflect and distract the topics raised- to you I offer my most heartfelt YUCK

now thats antagonistic

K