Understanding what one reads is key.

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), Feb 12, 2008 at 01:13

There is history and then there is reading comprehension. Whatever you think you know is lost with your inability to discern what you have read. Reread my submission, and this time try it with out the defensiveness and perhaps you will tweak to the sarcasm which I thought would have been apparent to the informed reader. My apologies for not being more blatantly obvious.

In my defense I can only say that I had hoped for an audience who would actually take the necessary time to read fully what I wrote and not knee-jerk react to individual snippets taken out of context. I must say I am more than surprised by this lack of comprehension coming from someone who stylizes themselves as "Infidel". Or are we to take your pen name literally and infer that you are morally, ethically, spiritually, and philosophically unfaithful?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".