It's not semantics at all, duncvis. Semantics is what you are doing. The facts speak for themselves. I stated that I knew how I came across to you, and then you basically rehashed what I said. I reentered this forum, with the attitude that I knew would irritate you. It has, obviously, been a complete success. If you were as intelligent as you say you are, you would realize that there are nearly an infinite number of things you could assume given the exact same information. Hence you should assume nothing. You know what they say about assumption being the mother of all fuckups. Well you're a complete fuckup, and I guess we know why.
It is amusing, however, that you need to resort to a "testing of superior intelligence" to substantiate your claim to lack of extreme stupidity or ignorance. Your intelligence bespeaks itself in how you write, and when all you can do is whine about "semantics" to claim that your point remains valid in the face of overwhelming logic to the contrary, it doesn't say a lot about your intelligence, and a lot more about your lack of maturity. It does not take any great degree of intelligence to graduate from university, merely a great memory.
I would have to agree to your having experienced a bit more of life than I have, but I did not bring into question the measure of our experiences. Your stupidity nor ignorance are in any great way linked to how much you have experienced, but what you have learnt from those experiences. It is moreso the ability to see what is right in front of you, and see not only what it is, but what it might be as perceived by people from other points of view. You have proven that you cannot read what is right in front of you, that you are severely incapable of differentiating between your own warped understanding of a piece of writing, and what has actually been written. You call it semantics, but only because you have trouble understanding it.
