, 25 September 2007 (UTC)  :: You write:-   'I'm not going to run around repeating the same arguments endlessly.  We can broaden the subject  . . .  But let's compartmentalise this by dealing with the JTB question first.  ::No. You cannot 'broaden a subject' and 'deal with the JTB' question when a very specific clarification on a passage that appears, as shown above, to violate Wiki rules, in that it appears to several here that you have made a synthesis, based on personal inferences, of two distinct scholars' ideas. To 'broaden the subject' means to avoid answering the query about your violation of these rules, wriggling out of the doubt by changing the subject. Persist in refusing to cut and paste the evidence (if it is, in the form we ask for, available in the talk records) is evidence of uncooperative editing and bad faith. Either by cutting and pasting, or several minutes of retyping, you can provide us with that simple set of texts, surely a time-saving way for both you and others, for the clarification asked of you? I take it that if you refuse to do this, the contested passage can be eliminated, since your silence would suggest you can not justify it in terms of the rules of composition some see as having been compromised there  15:45