Right back at you.Unless you link it, I don't read it.No. That's isn't true at all. You can't argue against it. You have no argument. This is all you have.Without a link and a quote from the relevant part, it's nothing at all.And I knew you wouldn't. It's not spam. It is the proof you asked to see.i didn't read your spamathon. Quote the relevant part then link to the rest of the piece if I want to explore it further. That's how it works here.Or you could offer up an alternative view replete with links and quotations.