> tell us why you bother to respond to something over a year later.
Thanks for asking. I had meant to make a longer and more substantive response after reading the books, when the details were fresh in my mind. By then the discussion was already rather stale, and I had other things to do.
But I thought there might be some value in pointing out, even a year later, that the books alluded to did not make the point that the OP claimed that they did.
It might also be worth remembering the next time Tanktalus appears to back up some strange-sounding assertion with a reputable source: he might be telling the truth, or, he might be waving around some book he hasn't read, using it as a club to bludgeon other people's arguments, without having any idea what it actually says, as he did in this thread. Normally when we have discussions we assume good faith and intellectual honesty, and that didn't happen here.
I suppose this is now off-topic, so I will abandon the thread.