I read what you wrote instead, and didn't draw the conclusions you expected. That doesn't make me right, but it doesn't make me wrong either. It means your writing was imprecise. Trying to fix the blame elsewhere for that won't help. The use of insults is not a clarifying tool, either.

you should learn to read better

Insult. (Try: "That was not what I meant". Personal ownership vs. shifting blame)

The title of my first post was "Why? Barry has proven himself incapable of rational discussion here and elsewhere".

Insult; hyperbole. (Try: "Barry's past remarks..." Easier to defend.)

Please tell me why that didn't clue you in my opinion was based on BD's behavior rather than the book itself?

Basing a response to someone's work based on his behavior isn't the same as basing a response on someone's past work. Your criticism was of the book based on the behavior. Though later it turned out to have had basis in past work.

Shall I judge your work by your behavior here?

I then posted "table of contents and some of his adle brained post are all the time I plan to waste on his writing".

Table of Contents (covered, and explained below -- thank you); insult. (Try: "badly supported" or "ill-researched". Easier to support, and not personal.)

Yes I know what skimming means and I have read several pages in the book and Evylin Woods styled a lot of pages. I would consider it dishonest to claim that constituted reading the book. I can see why you thought I had done less by the title above, but it was simply a concise way of stating that I had read little of the book and really didn't feel I needed to read beyond the table of contents. I did anyway because I am open minded, but what I got for being that was a further waste of time.

Testing one's existing opinions and current theories is never a waste of time -- but that's only my opinion.

You didn't answer the key question by the way.

I didn't realize it was a quiz. So many of your remarks have been rhetorical I thought that one was also. Was it this question?

What do you think the chances are that someone who has a very loose grasp on science has written a good science book especially when even brief skimming reveals it considers conspiracy theories a method of scientific rebuttal?

Slim but not impossible. About the same as the probability that a government committee can produce a work of enduring literary beauty -- and yet we have the King James translation of the Bible to prove that, once in a while, the improbable happens.

I admit I haven't read the book. I have noticed it hasn't burned a hole in the NYT bestseller list, so that means it hasn't gotten a broad distribution either.

Are conspiracy theories treated as a method of scientific rebuttal, or are they mentioned as part of a book aimed at a popular audience who would be interested in such things? (If I were writing a book about the Scottish lochs, I would mention Nessie.) How is the conspiracy theories angle presented? How does it balance out against the rest of the book? And does the book's age have anything to do with a disconnect between the positions in it and what science has added to the pool of knowledge since its publication? Is it, in fact, a piece of the history of science and not a current work of value to science as practiced today?

The biggest question for me is this one: Is it more important that the public be talking about science, even if there are errors in the work that they're talking about? Is this an opportunity for education? Children never learn so much about geology as when creationists try to disprove evolution. Throwing ideas around engages people. Throwing insults, ultimately, only turns people away from the subject in disgust.