[MD] [Bulk] Re: MOQ and Completeness Theories (Sorry, Godel.)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
Right,,, put into quotes for aesthetic reasons?  Not for 
misrepresenting the idea as mine.  ???

[Arlo]
I knew you were not asking for clarification as much as you were 
seeking some way to foist a paranoiac accusation of malicious intent. 
Lacking any real substantive or argumentative point, I expected this.

So I bit, took it at face value that I should clarify something as 
pedantic as syntax for you, but of course your game was simply more 
evasion and distraction (well done, too, I bet no one even noticed 
that you shifted the topic from interpretation and interpretative 
legitimacy into paranoid complaints about "misquoting"... (I used 
quotes there cautiously, I hope your confusion about quotes is 
somewhat cleared)).

I'll assume from this point forward your non-substantive replies will 
all be along the same vein. If you have something substantive to say, 
by all means, do, otherwise be my guest at all the paranoid evasions 
you want, I won't bother to reply to them any longer. Its clear to me 
its all you really have to offer in response to my points. The floor 
is all yours.

Oh, by the way, if you really don't understand the use of quotes, the 
typeset use of scare quotes, the ugliness of a unclosed single quote 
string, or the reasons why formatting and singular quotes are 
problematic in emails, then there are ample web resources that will 
help you out with that.