re: #285 wrenchwench

From the article at the top:

Given your apparent reading skills, never mind about getting back to me.

Well I am a little surprised that you would resort to such a ridiculous ad hominem attack for something so silly but so be it . I guess it shows that you can’t reference anything objective in the article to refute my point to begin with. Notwtithstanding your apparent desire to avoid the actual debate, I read the article (again shouldnt have been neccessary given the original post) and there is not a single line in it from my reading that changes my view of the statement above. But since it was you who suggested that I get back to you when I read it, and given that I now have, perhaps you could quote what other part of the article confirms your conclusion that the statement is bigotted, and which part of the article that is not quoted above gives more credence to that conclusion.