Chris P wrote:
This thread was actually developing into a rather interesting conversation between Russell and Scott - until that customary by now intervention amounting to a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack on Russell, apparently based on nothing more than a 'guess'.
Why, we might ask, are certain comments here continuously allowed to do pass, while lesser digressions are regularly censored out?
Because characterizing a comment that challenges another poster's logic as "a thinly veiled ad hominem attack" does not make it so. IMO what most frequently undermines interesting discussion and debate in this forum is the tendency by some people to cry "personal attack" whenever facts and logic fail to support their position, and/or when they simply don't like what they read.