When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Sorry, no, Mike. It's a pejorative, and thus a personal attack. You may observe that you think someone has presented contradictory reasoning or evidence. But once you impute motive to this, it's just an insult.
I can't believe you think any of this is going to help your cause.
Contradictory reasoning is one thing. Criticizing me for doing something, which I would actually argue I did not do, and then doing it yourself is pretty much a textbook case. I tried to take this as constructive feedback, and change the word in the initial post, but cannot think of a viable substitute. I can say that I was certainly not seeking to insult you, only to point out that you were doing the very thing you told me not to do.
Oddly, you haven't denied the charge, but have only asserted that I should not have made it for other reasons.
Help the cause? I told Bob two days ago that this thread was already doomed. But owners keep signing up, so perhaps I was wrong about that. Regardless, I didn't think Bob deserved to be taking hits for me for trying to help.
At the very least we're serving to entertain chsu74.
Folks with technical concerns about the methodology might want to contribute their perspectives to Michael's Wikipedia entry rather than debate them further here.
I neither wrote the wikipedia entry nor do I see how it's written like an advertisement with the possible exception of the "Participation" section. I hadn't really read through it closely before now. If someone with access can delete that section, I'd have no problem with that.
Note that it requests a "neutral point of view." Anyone here still have one?