Do you always have problems following a conversation. Just up the page I was giving a historical narrative of ancient tribal behavior and evolution. You took this, jumped in and accused me of supporting the Holocaust. Nowhere did this even bear any resemblance to any part of the conversation.The current string relates to the use of words. Lark is basically going around and calling anyone disagreeing with him a utopian. Given that utopianism is, in common usage, a term describing those who think some sort of system can solve the human condition and make everything 'a paradise' neither Gee nor myself fit that bill. I openly admitted to not reading Utopia completely. However, the term is quite common in conversations and a partial reading along with contextual situations gives one a general idea of what others expect the term to be used in an approximate manner.
But you!!! You have accused me of being ignorant of something I freely admitted I did not possess full knowledge of. It's kind of like someone admitting they're not too attractive and then you jumping in and telling them they're not attractive. Okay, you accuse me of not reading the full work (which I admitted from the start), but you can't even follow a short conversation posted right in this debate room (this is twice).
Maybe if you paid attention to what I was saying you'd actually say something worth responding to. Are you truly unable to follow conversations or is this some obtuse manner of changing around definitions or subjects? Either way is an exceptionally dishonest manner of conversing.
