You can't not make a clear statement and then demand that other peoples knock it down (and in the absence of them knocking down your non-existent case, do a victory dance). You can't infer a conspiracy without otlining one, and then leave it to others to 'show facts[sic] that you are wrong'

Furthermore, you certainly get nowhere dropping pithy quotes about how truth is everywhere and how the problem is with the closed minded fools who won't see it. Pithy quotes pinging the obstinancy of those who choose to exercise reason in the face of hyperbolic claims does not make you right. It makes you, at best, 'cute'- and only 'cute' to the people who agree with you already.

Apocryphal out of place historical analogies about the Schism between Galileo and the church don't make a case either. It gives you a, wait for it, Apocryphal out of place historical analogy- one that has been 'dumbed down' from its original rich historical context into something of a parable about the 'great NEW thinker' confronting the 'Tired Old Guard'. Just because you've dragged out this tired old dumbed-down parable doesn't mean you get to play the role of Galileo Galilei. Nor, actually, do I think you are even remotely aware of all the facets and details of that role.

A survey of psychiatrists and psychologists about what 'can't possibly be true' is most certainly not evidence and it is not a case- Its, wait for it, a survey showing that some selection of some pool of some psychiatrists and psychologists think something like what is being cliamed.

Now, you say you made a 'point' and that my reaction is founded in me not liking your point. You are entirely incorrect. My reaction comes form the fact that you have made an inferrence about a conclusion, but presented no thesis, no premises, no facts whatsoever, and furthermore, when pressed you have yet to present a case

So in essence, you never made a point, don't have a point, don't have an argument. At least in this particular case, I don't think you have much of a clue.

Yeti