> Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one
I agree! Yet you said:
> That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making
so I was confused. But now you've clarified:
> I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do
You guessed the argument, responded to it. Fair enough. Now I understand.
I appreciate your explanation. I don't think I agree with your analysis or conclusions, but I am grateful you have explained to me your thought process and haven't used personal attacks on me, so I feel this thread of the discussion was constructive. I can't say the same for anyone else participating in this thread.
I agree! Yet you said:
> That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making
so I was confused. But now you've clarified:
> I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do
You guessed the argument, responded to it. Fair enough. Now I understand.
I appreciate your explanation. I don't think I agree with your analysis or conclusions, but I am grateful you have explained to me your thought process and haven't used personal attacks on me, so I feel this thread of the discussion was constructive. I can't say the same for anyone else participating in this thread.