I would have thought that my last statement would have ended the conversation, because I really have no desire for this to devolve, but I see I was wrong. Very well then, let's do this.

Martin Stower Wrote:

> Now you’re merely lying (and how quickly we’ve
> reached this point). So much for your principles.
> So much for your ability.

How am I lying? Did you or did you not call my question "authoritarian", whatever that means in the context in which you used it?


> Your failure to offer any reason at all why I
> should answer your questions is noted. It remains
> as it was in the first place entirely at my
> discretion if I do so or not.
>
> M.

I already said I thought (wrongly, apparently) that we were having a reasonable discussion and I was asking for clarification, to which you responded that you felt you were under no obligation to do so. What kind of response is that? Certainly not an honest one in the interest of furthering the discussion.

If you're not interested in the subject, fine. Don't respond at all. That's why I hardly ever post on this board. I have no interest in "Vyse's inscriptions are forgeries." "Are not!" "Are too!"