> Well, it was DIRECTLY followed by an assertion of intellectual laziness in the premise of the article, as your quote so helpfully shows. Perhaps if you were a

> Well, it was DIRECTLY followed by an assertion of intellectual laziness in the premise of the article, as your quote so helpfully shows. Perhaps if you were a bit less lazy you might have caught that? You're confused. Those were my words not words from the article. > Ah! An interesting assertion, considering that what you have repeatedly described as "an example of laziness" from the article could easily be described in another way, as my other reply to you hints at. For example, we could say it was "stubbornness" [1] or "passivity" [2] or even "dysfunction" [3] with as much justification as you use "laziness. Some lazy actions may also be stubborn actions. I'm sure that you know this. > So on what basis do you choose the one, and not another? Are you serious? The word is the subject of the article, and the given situation was an example from the article that shows the existence of laziness, which is in contradiction to the premise from the aricle that was apparently created in order to sell books.