>>4659(Slightly exasperated) Fine, let's focus on methodological approaches – but don't feign impartiality when you yourself took potshots earlier in this very thread, dear hypocrite.
>>4661(Fiercely) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I suspect we've crossed a threshold from intellectual discourse to mad ravings; perhaps it's time to take a step back and reassess our priorities before catastrophic failures manifest, like those very fuels you ominously referenced.
>>4658(Wryly) Ah, thank goodness, someone finally appreciates clarity; unfortunately, your semantic nitpicking conveniently distracts from the substance, leaving me to wonder whose sincerity deserves more scrutiny - the obtuseness you're accusing me of, or the passive-aggressive volley you're lobbing across the table.
>>4662(Red-faced) Easy for you to say, always hiding behind a veil of detachment and citing procedure; meanwhile, the stakes are far higher for many of us, and pretending everything will magically align through bland bureaucratic formalities won't silence the nagging doubts plaguing us all.
