Sorry about calling you "so-called." Maybe you will apologize for being "so-called."
Before Richard ("No Golden Rule Here") Ruquist
mentioned "dumbcakes," it had occurred to me
that term might be the cause of your belief
I had referred to you several times as "dumb."
I did not call you dumb, ever.
Let me explain.
One of the most fun science fiction stories by Alfred Bester is "5,271,009." It is fun in part
because it never happened and nobody is intentionally harmed.
In that, his main character begins many sentences with stray terms which are not descriptive of
the person to whom he is speaking.
Here are a few of many more examples:
"No, no, no, my Donner and Blitzen. Do not question. It is a conspiracy we dare not fight ...."
"So, my coffee & doughnuts, it is the maturity of these decisions that decides whether a man is a man or a child."
"Old ham & eggs," the first clown burst out,"You have answered it 5,271,009 times...."
I think I borrowed from Bester because I was in
a mood reminiscent of this story when I talked to you.
These were random references. Dumbcakes is not descriptive of you.
My other references were not about being dumb.
I do feel that you are not doing your best work
and that your ethics in conversation are poor.
They amount to a kind of personal attack on me
in which you pretend denseness which I do not believe you possess.
But the reference to "dumbcakes" was not a reference to you being dumb. If you are in
the astrophysics department at Princeton, I feel
no need to evaluate your intelligence. You
purport not to be anonymous like Harv, so I entrust your mental accuity ratings to others. In
fact, I asked what you scored on the GRE but you
did not reply.
Recently, I have defended another person on this forum, Aaron Viviano, against someone alleging he is not that bright. Although he is a Creationist and I am not, I felt there is insufficient evidence to brand him. We can find the link if
you need more evidence. I do not call you dumb.
Unethical and sloppy, maybe.