I am absolutely fascinated as to why you think I don't grasp that. I did watch the video. Interesting, Thank you. I;m also aware of that. I don't dispute that.

I did two years math at college. I could generally do a college level paper in half the time and get 100%. A math tutor said to me "Tessa, I have a masters in Math from UCLA and I have never seen anyone do math the way you and your daughter can." I have also argued statements in math text books with the math department, and won.

My late father was the chairman (and at times the president) of the astronomical society of the city where I grew up. So every third or forth Tuesday night, when he went to show people the stars, I would go with him and set up the telescopes.

I recall looking at the stars one night and thinking - the universe can't end, because if it ends with a wall of an electromagnetic field or something, how wide is that wall and what is behind the wall?

I was 8 years old.

Your original objection was to my statement, "Once people can reason objectively, taking factual information into account, it will be a lot easier to sort out the problems facing us in the here and now." Note the words 'here and now.'

My article was written with a specific reference to the American market, but touching on all political liberal political parties. The reason I made that statement was that liberals were focused on too many nonsense issues that they were divided, and that they weren't facing up to the big issues like climate change.

Clearly, there was something in my article that got your knickers in a knot - to use the venacular, sort of. Perhaps you disagreed with my statement on climate change, and rather than debate that head on, you had to start with undermining my ability to determine obvious fact from obvious fiction. You did that by delving into the higher echelons of mathemenatics - none of which was relevant. Red Herring? Strawman, I dont' know. There were so many elements off-point in your statement.

It's not that I'm not receptive to further argument. It's that I recognize when someone just wants to have a 'discussion' with me - for whatever reason, and that discussion doesn't affect the relevancy of what I have written.

Certainly, at certain levels within our world, there is so much complexity that we would be hardpressed to know what is real and what is not, what is fact, and what is fiction. I'm fully aware of that.

However, when it concerns the particular issues that I have discussed, that argument is irrelevant. And the problem with people like you who write to me is you underestimate both my level of knowledge and my intelligence.

For the record, every day of my life, I read a book, and go through the French, German, Hong Kong, Russian, African, British and American news feeds. I also look at different abstracts in various sciences. I am fully cogniscent of what is happening in our world. I also know how to write for general understanding.

Again, thank you for the video. It wasn't that I didn't know that. It was just a good experience being reminded.

Rest in peace.