Then you are simply admitting to my oft discussed argument that the test of inte

Then you are simply admitting to my oft discussed argument that the test of intelligence is the number of lily pads necessary to cross the pond between increasingly contextually divergent patterns.
In other words, you’re inadvertently confessing to a lack of competency to judge that upon which you opine.
You could in fact, study something as simple as my tables of sex differences in cognition, or the table of grammars, or the methodology of disambiguation, or the ternary logic, or the trifunctional competition between civilizations.
You could try to find fault with any of those bodies of my work.
But you haven’t, and likely because you can’t, and for reason’s you’ve inadvertently confessed.
Outing yourself in public by demonstrating the canonical feminine is a rather ironic method of defending the feminine against the masculine.
So you know, I find you, in the end, more than a bit silly, childish, and cognitively feminine – which means childish.

Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice @a7959705360789