I don’t think I even need to respond to A given his self-incrimination. Anything you say or do will be used against you in the court of Bookworm Room. 

This narcissistic idea that other people exist only to fulfill some sick need of A here is beyond the pale. But unexpectedly normal and to be expected amongst the alliance of the Left. They even have members in them that think they don’t belong, even as their parent institutions do.
To avoid contradicting yourself, conservatives care about ideas but we don’t actually forget people’s names that we are talking to. Else we’d attribute Mao and Obama’s ideas to Instapundit or Neo-Neocon. LibProgs care about the authority where ideas come from. And you, A, more than most.

It could be from anyone, in their view. All would be equally X. Unless you’re a Harvard grad or Ivy Tower affiliate.

“maybe the real reason why they mis-attribute claims to the wrong authors is due to the simple fact that they don’t read all of what you write…”

Or maybe I read what was written and just didn’t read the name above the quote.  Both are possible.  Given that I responded to what was written, maybe my theory holds and yours doesn’t.  But feel free to point out what I obviously didn’t read…

…and while we’re at it, and since it’s related.  Please state clearly what “scientific proof” you were referring to when you wrote:  “Marty here [he] is basically implying or even stating outright that those “scientific facts” of yours are in fact, and in reality, propaganda.”

For the record, I couldn’t call what “Marty” wrote propaganda, since he offered nothing that had scientific data and a name or peer-reviewed journal name attached to it.  It wasn’t even enough to call propaganda, actually.  I think “Marty” was falsely comparing the reporting of scientific proof with Alinsky propaganda tactics, which are not the same thing at all.  Or, maybe, YOU confused who wrote what and are mixing up with my claim that Mike has offered no scientific proof or sources at all.

“I’ve wondered about A through Z’s time myself.  I’ve also noted that the tactic is to keep everyone else engaged.”

Right on.  As long as both sides keep up their end of the bargain, by supplying accurate facts and sound logic, one asymptotically approaches the “truth” on a matter–or, to put it in better terms, one achieves an answer with a higher probability of being right.  That is why everyone ought to be engaged.
“I enjoy it a lot, because there is a huge amount of information and analysis flowing through here, but the imagine I get is of one of those machines that automatically pops out tennis balls (relentlessly, no sweat, minimal skill or logistics), while the real player runs around the court, getting sweaty.  Of course, the real player also gets stronger and more skilled, so there is something to be said for the set up.”
But the end, ultimately, is not to win the game, but to become a better player.  Similarly, the end shouldn’t be to defend a partisan position, but to figure out what the right answer is, regardless of partisan beliefs or interests. 

“I do appreciate that A and Z, like the tennis machine, don’t get mean.  They’re relentless, but Z is imperturbably good humored, while A merely gets a bit sarcastic and snarky, which is allowable at this blog.  (It’s got to be allowable, considering that I, myself, am a snark and sarcasm practitioner.)”

I lack Z’s discipline, so I am glad that Book doesn’t confuse sarcasm with disrespect.  If I didn’t care, I’d go somewhere else…which, I know, many here wish I would have done long ago…

Charles,

“abc, as Book has so capably pointed out, your tactic is to simply change the topic to keep the thread going. Ergo: I was remarking on your Alinsky-like manner of discourse, not its content.”

Wrong.  Alinsky, I believe, talked about propaganda.  I am citing scientific facts.  There is a big difference, and it DOES relate to the differential content (misleading with falsifications versus enlightening with facts) of Alinsky and Z or myself.
“Mike Devx, et al., has done a fine job of refuting your steady stream of URLs and authorities, and keeping his remarkable good humor in the face of your congenital sullenness.”

Which source did he cite that refuted the many that I cited?  In what universe does the lack of proof refute scientific proof?

“…But like him, I see that you will continue pleasuring yourself on this topic no matter what we say in response since your goal is disruption, not elucidation.”

One cannot use facts and logic, apparently, to disabuse someone of a faulty position that they didn’t use facts and logic to formulate.  And as an aside, I take no pleasure in observing this trait in you and others, nor in my useless attempts to change it–your comments to the contrary notwithstanding.
“By the way, abc, what is your profession? (Given the wild uneveness of their writing, we already know Z is several people, whom some here theorize is an academic or Asperger syndromer and naive college students he holds in thrall.)”

What is yours?  For once, I think you ought to answer one of my questions before I respond to your queries.

Mike Devx, et al., has done a fine job of refuting your steady stream of URLs and authorities, and keeping his remarkable good humor in the face of your congenital sullenness. But like him, I see that you will continue pleasuring yourself on this topic no matter what we say in response since your goal is disruption, not elucidation.

By the way, abc, what is your profession? (Given the wild uneveness of their writing, we already know Z is several people, whom some here theorize is an academic or Asperger syndromer and naive college students he holds in thrall.)