> Hi Eye
> Got to be honest here, and I genuinely do not mean to be rude -
> but I only see you as someone whose chosen role is purely to
> back up, justify and applaud anything mstower says on this
Got to be honest here, I dare say less effort for me than for you, but I see you as someone whose chosen role (pitiably) is no more than to back up, justify and applaud anything Scott Creighton says on this subject — and this purely dogmatically, without offering a scrap of evidence or argument in support of your position (which is, as EoH notes, merely Creighton’s), even (or especially) when challenged explicitly to do so.
Whereas EoH has made cogent comments on the evidence, but evidently you don’t have that “got to be honest” feeling on the question.
Did you take my advice and read up on projection? We’re seeing less of the pseudo-psychologising one-upmanship now, aren’t we? Further study is suggested.
> . . . having no original ideas or opinions of your own that I can discern . . .
You couldn’t make it up.
Good thing I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that, as I might have sprayed it all over my keyboard, when the uncontrollable laughter took over.