(I attempted to go to the Fred Bortz school of polite disagreement on this one, but I don't think I can pass the course yet.)

First of all, I only posted once prior to your calling me out. I am never anonymous. I'm way too good-looking.

Second, if you've ever read anything I posted, you should know that there's an upper limit to how seriously you should take what I say, and that limit is about high enough for a challenging round of limbo.

Third, I admit that I didn't read your post when I commented, mostly because I made it through the first 3 sentences and wasn't interested (don't feel bad, no blogs are judged completely fairly). My primary interest was to make a flippant comment about someone else's comment (which mission I proudly accomplished). You will be happy to know that I have read it now. Three times. Rejoice! Your voice has been seen.

Fourth, despite having read it, I won't take the time to discuss it, partly because it isn't even remotely related to anything scientific (or, to be fair, to either business or the economy). By contrast, I will be very interested to read the histamine post that you just put up. Allergies are both interesting and relevant.

Fifth: the other reason that I didn't read it was literary. if you wouldn't mind some criticism, I should point out that the post itself simply doesn't flow very well. I think some careful editing, focusing and structural rearrangements would do wonders for your thesis, which, as I understand it, was "people didn't like Rev. Wright's comments because they're racist, just like people who wrote letters to Abraham Lincoln's treasurer who wanted to put God on their coins because they felt guilty about being racist."

And that is the last I will say on this thread. Unless I change my mind. Maybe I'll flip a coin.