>>220

1. So because I don't care to specify a term for something unrelated to the primary matter at hand, a term which you will undoubtedly go off on a tangent about because your understanding of it differs from mine, I lose?
2. The article in >>219 states my beliefs more eloquently then I could. That is why I linked it.

(FYI, >>221 ain't the same Anonymous Scientist as me. I'm not sure why he/she directed that post to >>220 instead of >>218.)