Again, you have been definitively proved wrong without bluster, insult or diversion and you are not intellectually sufficient to acknowledge it. I don't know why your ego demands that you remain ignorant and obstinate, but it obviously does.

You have bypassed rationality. You have been proved wrong and you don't have the integrity to admit it. It seems obvious that you look at this exchange as some sort of game that you lose if you admit to any mistake, regardless how clear it's been made to you.

Okay. You've proved that you're not playing by any known rules of discourse. I laid as close to a logic proof that you're ever likely to get proving you're wrong and you can't see it.

I also want to point out that ad hominem attacks are not always impermissible. Maybe that's where you've gotten confused.

I can't go much slower with you.

Read the ADDENDUM. I had forgotten how slow I have to go with you.

ADDENDUM: I forgot who I was talking to. Let's make it simple.

One thing. "You are directly refuted in the Wikipedia article on Authority Fallacies: "Fallacious arguments from authority can also be the result of citing a non-authority as an authority." And it is therefore proper to reject an argument that is Fallacious."

Total agreement.

In my opinion, though, it's a mistake to think that words are just as devastating as deeds, especially if they're unintentional.

It's fascinating how you admit to my claims against you - re: your ego, your imaginary audience, your hostility - yet you view your admissions as a proclamation of victory or virtue.

Look, I've obviously hit an extraordinarily exposed nerve. If you wish to discuss something, I'm open to it. And it does look as if your spleen may be finally getting close to vented.

Man, if you could just make one point and argue on that point, we'd be a lot better off. You don't hear the nonsense coming out of your mouth because there's just so darn much of it.

"Your demonstration of wilful ignorance merits any and all hostility aimed at you." - Well, that's your problem right there. And you must believe it, because you repeat it. You think I deserve hostility.

Well, I tried with you, I can say that at least. Even after it got personal and heated, I tried to back off and model a cooler head, so to speak. If you can read your comments and not see hostility, then you don't know what hostility is. Your argument seems to be, 'I've got a right to be hostile because you made me so…

Here's a copy of what I replied to Bizarro above. I'm trying to move past the obvious hostility we have for each other. The one additional point I want to make concerns you constantly framing your disagreement in terms of me not speaking scientifically enough or in my offerings of anecdotal information. Imagine we…

Here's the narrative on the issue, as I understand it and in layman's terms (because I will inevitably make mistakes if I try to be too scientific, and then I'll have to argue on topics I'm not qualified to argue about, and argue these topics with others who I feel aren't qualified.)

It's really not.

I don't know that he's ever addressed that point. He keeps thinking I'm talking about sample sizes of the compressed sound when I'm talking about population samples.

Man, I'm not anti-science. Have you read the one link he posted? It's not the only thing out there on this subject and it was written anonymously.