wyndhy,

It is good to read that you will be courteous, and I share your confidence in the reliability of NPR news reporting.

As you did not indicate the source of your “not could be. is.”, it seemed reasonable to ask you the source of your assertion. That was an absolute claim. Within the context of this thread, where other truth claims have been made, and then left unsupported, I am surprised that you expected your assertion to be assumed true. I hoped you would be able to substantiate your claim, as doing so would move the discussion forward. My response “Thank you. Would you PM or post those links? I’d like to see what they have to say.” still seems innocuous to me. I believe you over reacted, although you disagree.

I do think that shared references (if they can be agreed upon) are very useful to explore a subject, as they help reduce ambiguity. This may help explain why I prefer a common url to a generalized directive. Your initial statement “i took a moment to search” does seem to be at odds with the subsequent “not for the time i took to search, or the lengthy article i culled which was chalk full of information”.

My reading of your posting history lead me to conclude that you do not believe you think your opinions may not be questioned. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I still believe it. Do you feel that I am arrogant to expect that those with whom I discuss subjects I wish to better understand should be able to support their positions? Perhaps this is where I disagree with you, and with others. I believe that when people make a truth claim, then they should be able to substantiate their claim, either with explanation or evidence.

__________________
Eudaimonia