Maybe I'm obtuse here, but I'm having difficulty following the logic of this exchange. Doug posts a typically annoyingly vacuous remark of B. which is subsequentally shown to be vacuous, though "to be fair" not quite as stupid as one might have initially thought. But then it is claimed that there is no reason to forgive B's idiocy in any case-the implication being that we all knew he was an empty suit to beging with.
What, then, was the point in posting the first remark? To keep us on our toes?
Am I suffering from irony deficiency syndrome?
I do admit to getting a good chuckle at french pomos receiving a good in the rear-fairly or unfairly.
John