BH: To regulate the tempo of our increasingly pointless discussion, I'm going to withhold the cleartext version of my obfuscated response (below) until sometime next week.It's amusing that you seem to think I could ever consider "threatening" any of the emails you're sending me.
D: Save yourself the effort. Your bizarre letter has tripped my Weirdo Alarm System so I'm going to quietly and in as non-threatening a manner as possible
back away to leave you alone to decode. [..] the incomprehensible "letter" really only serves to confirm the alert.("Letter"? Who calls emails "letters"? Does Douglas think he's quoting someone here?)
If you can't comprehend that your arguments are not interesting enough to warrant daily dissection from me, then feel free to use your incomprehension as an excuse to stop sending me them. Since you imply that you won't read or repond to it, I'll simply post my final refutation of your latest criticisms on my correspondence page. Welcome to the trophy case. :-)
Actually, the fact that you wish to continue to engage in a discussion you consider to be "increasingly pointless" is sufficient to trip the W.A.S.This discussion served two purposes: to reconfirm the strength of my argument about reliance on the scholarly consensus, and to uphold my policy of rebutting any critiques of my writings. The first purpose is now fulfilled, and given the nature of your critiques, the second hardly merits a daily drain on my time.
It has been interesting [..]I wish I could say the same.
if not enlightening, exchanging emails with you but this is where I move on to more useful sources of information.Good luck, and have a nice life (assuming you can in fact resist responding yet again).
Ignore the voices and take your meds.What an ironically appropriate coda to a series of emails in which you've spent most of your time arguing against positions I either do not hold or have explicitly said I'm not interested in debating.