I apologize.I could have handled it in a better way.

[Guest guest]

I apologize.

 

After reading again shortly after I lost my composure, I clearly saw that your

intent was quite honorable.

 

I guess I should have practiced my Wayne Cook posture before posting.

 

But to clarify:

 

I agree that Wikipedia is not the strongest reference. But it is a reference.

And I did develop my own line of thought based on the reference.

 

We are here for communication and to discuss ideas from ourselves and others.

 

I also think that questioning the credibility of references is a supportive

tactic. But it would be much more helpful if you would supply a better

reference. I would really have appreciated it because I have been spending time

looking for clear information on this topic.

 

The part about your post that I didn't understand was that you used the same

ideas from the Wiki reference that I used.

 

Personally if I was to question someone's reference I would make my own comments

in such a way that they could easily be distinguished from the reference that I

questioned. To me this would diminish the sincerity of questioning the reference

and the validity of the post.

 

I do think that I could have handled this situation in a better way.

 

Wm

 

 

 

, Jim Knippenberg

<erommel wrote:

>

> I don't understand what you're whining about? I gave detailed answers, and

you didn't like them. If I had given a short answer, you would have said I gave

a " not incredibly detailed " answer, just like you did regarding Ingo Swann in

your follow up post.

>

>

> Jim