But I wasn't using it rhetorically
to the extent you do.
The structure of what you write seems
to follow this pattern:
1) Cite some research and then jump to some conclusions by mysterious routes not spelled out.
2) Say Mike is immature and doesn't fit in with the research like, say, Aurino or Yutuist do.

The step you omit is the one where
you actually deal in *unbroken and fair (and balanced)
logical sequences (and lattices).


Oh well.