I read lots of things by people who clearly have no idea what they are saying. Especially true of people who try to talk about the sciences, when they have little or no training in the area. Those people come off as highly non-lucid. I do not think you always understand what you are saying. And then at other times I think you know what you are saying, but you simply cannot communicate whatever it was, you thought you understood.
I am so sorry you do not understand my point, though.
I will restate. You SEEM to be saying that the one post about criminals was lucid, and all the other posts, or many of them were not, in comparison. And yet you reply to my posts and points as if you understand them. It is not possible to really understand a non-lucid post (imo).
It is my contention that what you really mean is, you agree with my position on criminals, and thus felt called upon to comment. But since you do not like other positions of mine, which are clear to you, but which also clearly do not appeal to you, you felt a need to use the lucid terminology which didn't really fit. Because what you obviously did was take a position that you liked, and define that as lucid. :-) That is simply one of the fallacies. That position is no more lucid than other positions. You just happen to agree with it. |
