<p>Drax, enough of this non-sense. </p>
<p>You have now gone from complaining about my “hyper-sensitive” defense of Stanford to accusing me of having a hidden agenda, all the while adding a number of ad hominems. </p>
<p>I told you that how your original interpretation of my post was erroneous. Do I really have to start adding a diagram to my posts for you to understand them better? If that is the case, here it is. First of all, note how there is a hard return between the first sentence that addressed the quotations and the link to the Stanford newspaper. The first statement was an answer to your post and was made based on direct and personal knowledge of the issues. That first sentence was not an introduction to the link. The link was presented as a viewpoint worth … reading, and not as a rebuttal. Again, your faulty assumption was your problem. </p>
<p>When you came back with your “care to share” I responded with links about the issues I raised in my original reply, namely the quotations having been obtained under false pretenses and taken out of their original context. Pretty straightforward, as far as I know. I really do not know how to make any of this clearer to you. Well, except for reminding you that the basic element of reading comprehension is to focus on what is written, and not add your own whimsical interpretations.</p>