You didn't phrase your evaluation of the probable value of the book as an extrapolation outward of your knowledge of Mr. DiGregorio's work until you were nailed to the wall.

For the record, reading the Table of Contents chapter titles by themselves is not considered "skimming". If you then went to the chapter with the suspect contents and confirmed your suspicions by paging through the section headings, etc., that was skimming and I apologize for implying you haven't looked at the book. It interests me that you admit to at least consulting it to confirm it was not worth your time, which is also the activity of an open mind.

I was giving credit for being open minded to RC, but impolitely suggesting he exercise some descretion in what he retains in the future.

Naturally, Hitler would come up. Mr. Clark replied:

Actually, I have read "Mein Kampf."
It's a bad book. Both morally and badly written.

Read the book. Then criticize it. Simple principle.

You replied:

. . . [many references to other sources which contradict Mr. DiGregorio's work] . . .
You may have time to waste on books [reference to Mars: The Living Planet] unlikely to be of value, I don't.

I'm not real impressed you gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt, but it does indicate an open mind possibly an empty one.

Being "not real impressed" is giving someone credit? My goodness, if you compliment your girlfriend with equal aplomb...

Please also note that Mr. Clark drew a conclusion from his reading of Mein Kampf that did not result in credulous retention of its contents. You clearly implied that what one reads, one believes, so it is best not to contaminate one's brain with anything one does not want to believe. This is a parochial attitude in a very literal sense: it's the one that was behind the approved reading lists in the parochial school I attended when I was little.

If you had said what the basis was for your critique in an intelligent, substantive way in the first place (even though it's been said before, in which case you could have linked to the post), this entire discussion would have been pre-empted. You finally did. Is it really that much easier to insult people rather than to cite reasons for your positions, or is it only more entertaining? Would you talk to someone like this if you met him at a lecture, a workshop or a book-signing?

It's been nice talking to you too.