> [...] As per my last reply, I don't believe further debate of this point would be productive. We've both made our arguments. I'm comfortable letting mine sta

> [...] As per my last reply, I don't believe further debate of this point would be productive. We've both made our arguments. I'm comfortable letting mine stand on their own merits. If you'd like to start a meta-discussion about this discussion, and any grievances therein, I'll happily participate if we can keep it civil. I think understanding why and how debates can breakdown at the limits (and what those limits are) provides real value in avoiding such breakdowns in the future. > Thanks for making my point clearer and adding interesting technical references to back it up. You have provided the sources to back up my claims. I am glad to have made a positive impact on you in some small way, at least. > Totally unnecessary and uncalled for. You have repeatedly accused me of bad faith which lowers the discussion to a childish level of vindictive garbage. You were not making your point clear before and I was making the effort to respond sincerely to that, trying explain what I thought you misunderstood. It seems that you are still confused and are arguing my point for me without realizing it. In the spirit of the above, if you are being sincere: I must genuinely urge you to consider why someone might believe your arguments to be unsatisfactory, and how charitable it is not to only consider incoherent formulations of the arguments of others. Put simply: if you see someone's argument as trivially unsound, is it possible you have misunderstood their position? If you're admitting that you did not understand my argument with sufficient clarity to contest it, on what grounds can you claim to know what I've misunderstood in the making of it? My claim follows from this line of reasoning. You are, necessarily, by your own admission, arguing against a strawman.