You're right, of course.
I'm not really capable of responding to multiple complex points if I'm not looking at them, so while the quotes serve as a guide to the readers of what I'm talking about, they moreso serve as a guide for me, without which I might be much less cogent. I'll try to cut 'em down to basics; don't want to take up all the memory space, if there is such a thing, of this website with repitition. I could probably edit them out entirely once I've written my replies.
I've intended no incivility; I just consider some things hard to swallow; hard to believe just because they've been passed down/stamped with official approval, and hard to accept the way others seem to swallow them whole. I've been around winners and losers. I've seen approval and felt disaproval of those who claim authority, and by no means have I found these things to be universally based on merit.
I'll say a general thing, if I may on the subject of merit and meritocracy, which I think bears some relevance in broad social terms. Every stratified Human society has been a meritocracy. No one ever said let's put the simple minded or unethical in charge. The only disagreement (and it's vast) is how to determine/identify/define merit.......and the methods are rarely salutary, IMHO.
Therefore, quoting an "expert" to me, or numbers of them, is rarely a very meaningful way to communicate with me: I've been around experts, too (
).
I do seem to find it difficult to be civil in the face of mockery; please argue with me using reason, rather than sarcasm or societie's (to me) meaningless judgements, if possible.
And I'll try to find a more respectful word for what seems far out unlikely to me than silly..........