Mark, it was the other poster who claimed that I did not understand the research. I didn't start it, and it was not necessary for you to jump in and continue something that was between me and asdrpradii.
Your time would be better spent critiquing the paper rather than critiquing my response to a poster who insulted me.
My comments up to that point were about the information in the paper.
It was asdrpradii who made it personal by denigrating my intelligence with ad hominem remarks about my ability to comprehend the paper. It's seven pages long and most of it is a re-statement of Cheshire's work. It's not hard to understand.
Now let's get back to a discussion about the research.
Your time would be better spent critiquing the paper rather than critiquing my response to a poster who insulted me.
My comments up to that point were about the information in the paper.
It was asdrpradii who made it personal by denigrating my intelligence with ad hominem remarks about my ability to comprehend the paper. It's seven pages long and most of it is a re-statement of Cheshire's work. It's not hard to understand.
Now let's get back to a discussion about the research.