Which is to say following a recipe which calls for two or three parts invective for every one part discussion. Hence, on what Scott V convincingly pointed out is a relatively minor part of the equation, my arguments have been labeled "inane", "preposterous", "farcical","laughably wrong", and "wrong and silly." It is interesting that your motive was never to convince anyone of the merits of your position, which may explain why the thing I am most convinced of at this point is that civil discourse is not your strongest suit.

I know how you like to have the last word, which I'm more than willing to give you, although I do have a suggestion or two about possible topics. One is to avoid feminism. Not even the great Daniel Webster could enter a debate in support of a "girl" who he described as "kind of cute", who used to bounce around, "short dress flying every which way", and convince anyone that his motivation for entering the fray was to advance women's right to be treated equally.

Since you brought it up, my second suggestion has to do with the Derby List. As you know, my reason for becoming a member was to obtain information relating to the fix six scandal, which those who seem to be in charge were more than willing to provide. The information in question was passed on to reporters, who were advised to also read this Bd for insights into the thinking of serious fans. The impression I was left with when I contacted the individuals you put me in touch with, however, is that instead of saying that you are not a member of the List, it might be more accurate to say that you are no longer a member. If this is true, why wouldn't you take it as a sign that it just might be possible that some of the debating tactics you favor are, shall we say, a mite bit out of bounds?