[MissC]

Oh boy! I'm glad I DIDN'T read the article judging from the response most of you had. I saw the headline outside of this forum earlier and decided, judging by the title, it was something I didn't want to read. I'll just agree with the rest of you that he's an idiot!

There's about the very definition of going off half-cocked. You're going to critique someone, call him wrong, call him an idiot -- without even reading what he wrote. Don't you think that makes you look a bit... prejudiced? And you call the author closed-minded? When you won't open your own mind to discussion? My mind boggles how one does this with a straight face.

Perhaps, like the White Queen, members of this forum are equipped to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast daily.

I mean, while I don't agree with everything published in the Wall Street Journal, I'm pretty sure they don't publish idiots. They know their readership -- which is not the average dullard on the street.

None of us brought GD on ourselves, acquired it like a virus, would continue with it if we had the choice or are "ill" because of it.

So you too join the club of putting words in the man's mouth. There is nothing in that article that says anything like you just said it did.

Nothing.

So not only did you not read the article you think is proof of the author's idiocy... you've added stuff to it that was never there, and that stuff looks a bit like straw men.


Wow.

Do you realize how idiotic it looks to do that?

Don't you think, if you want to appear to be open-minded, that you'd give it a read and at least a brief consideration, and then go to refuting it? You know, with facts?

I do not see one actual argument in this thread. I see a bunch of bratty children pointing fingers and shouting, "he's a poopy head! Poopy head! Poopy head!"


I sure miss the days when only nerds could figure out how to get on the internet.