Replies

"Have you ever imagined that you have a negative reaction to the material is because it is not a ready resource of snappy comebacks and repartee, can't be distilled to a "for Dummies" level, and that this may indicate that it is beyond your ability to comprehend, and that you are projecting your intellectual deficiencies on the material?"

No, but I'm betting you haven't read a word of the material I criticized, which would put you about on the plane you're trying to put me.

As I pointed out, there could well be a million words of diatribe at that site on the state of male/female relationships. It's written in a stilted pedantic tone, and rife with the repeated use of "I think this..." and "In my opinion that..." And nowhere, I mean nowhere, is the a footnot or citation to validate or substantiate a single claim. Then, to top it all off, it all resides under the main website of one J. Orlin Grabbe, notorious internet pseudo-intellectual, snake oil salesman, and conspiracy theorist.

How's that for snappy comeback and repartee?

I've been following the series for more than two and a half years now.

It's essentially a college and post-graduate course in politics, psychology, and sociology all rolled into one, with a lot of history thrown in for good measure. It presumes that the reader can abstract from facts and connect the abstractions to form new concepts. It presumes a level of education or insight capable of recognizing historically observable and theoretically demonstrable phenomena, and the ability to extrapolate probable outcomes.

As for your snappy comeback, all I can say is that you write like a precocious thirteen year old with a new thesaurus. Being thrilled by a Vonnegut story and letting everyone know that you are an enthusiastic Vonnegut fan is not the same as being able to write with Vonnegut's vivid economy.