Are you sure you prefer that? I could have gone with illogical argument or hand-waving, accusations of racism, racism, philosophical speculation (aka putting my graduate degree to some use) and psychoanalysis, labelling, name-calling, use of ill-defined terms, ridicule, forked it into a different discussion, questioned your motive, provided 100s of random URLs (not to be cunfused with "pulling a Pug" which is a different beast), initiated meta-discussion about the issue and you with someone else, lumped you in with the demons in my head, sent email to your postmaster (man, haven't heard that threat in a while!), signed up to LBO as sprezzatura and agreed effusively with my criticism of you, or in lieu of the above admitted that I did not have the capability to actually answer (or attempt to answer) your question rationally or treat you with respect. Are you sure you wouldn't have preferred that?
--ravi
Just in case you now realize how much better my response could have been, I have attached my alternate response:
Martin, or rather fucking wacko, you are a shame to the left. Your religious questioning makes you look like a fool in the midst of our rational faith in the One True Story. What I find most disturbing though is your clearly racist implication that brown people cannot get their photographs taken. You are stuck with questions that are puzzling. In short you are a constipation-theorist. Joan, the best way to deal with Martin is to ridicule him. His silliness does however provide us an opportunity for more edifying discussion on the teleological contradictions of behaviourist hermenuetics. Let us proceed thither. What's that I hear? Martin, you still around with your need to ask questions? Well, since you are around, I just wanted to add: your mother is rather corpulent.
-- Gerrit Gerritzoons