> What's funny is that I did look at all nine
> entries in his 2nd link. A waste of time since
> other than him stating his personal opinion in
> each post of that search listing, there were only
> 2 relevant citations that he could have quickly
> cited in his reply instead of sending us on a
> silly goose chase to wade through all the chaff.
Possibly your most loathsome hypocrisy to date.
Let’s have the truth of this.
I suggested to Open mind (not you) that he carry out a search on the question of dating the paint which has been much discussed here (so implicitly a search of this board):
You butted in with your ignorant and ill-mannered naysaying—immediately trying to fault that unexceptionable suggestion—immediately misrepresenting what I’d said—purporting to have “followed [my] advice” when you’d done nothing of the kind, but merely indulged your confirmation bias. In response to that, I gave you (as a potted search) an example of the kind of search you should have done for yourself—and you have the effrontery to nitpick⸮
You really do want your [self-censored] wiping for you, don’t you, Doctor Femano⸮
I don’t give a flying flatus what you read. You pretended to readers of this board that the second link wasn’t given, by omitting it from your quote in a post on a different thread entirely (the one you idiotically necroposted):
And here you are sneaking this muck in, without having the honour or the balls to address it to me directly.