I understand that you've the distinct disadvantage of not being me, but do try to keep up. You haven't the linguistic capacity to critique my prose. This is demonstrated by your conflation of a word's prominence in the semi-literate public's availability heuristic with its semantic complexity. For example, instead of "isotropic" should I write "in an omnidirectionally uniform manner"? That's five damn words instead of one, in case your mathematic and linguistic abilities are proportional. I was also critiqued for my use of the word "riposte". Yet "rebuttal", "refutation" and "retaliation" are all longer despite being more commonplace. Moreover, most synonyms will have nuanced differences in their implications which may be quite abstruse. A riposte differs from a refutation in that it specifically denotes a swift verbal parry. Furthermore, your assertion that semantic complexity is a sign of stupidity is pretty much the obverse of the truth. If I thought you were within ejaculating distance of cognitive competence, I might explain how intelligence is extant owing to emergent complexity. You'd better hope, for the sake of your intellectual independence and autopoiesis, that you never face me directly in a more thoroughgoing debate. :)

>>212765286
K

>>212765333
Checked

>>212765286
He never said that.