>>67 is only capable of reading the previous post in any given thread, which is why he failed to criticize >>66 for glazing over >>65's half-witted post. By >>65's reckoning, he himself also fails to create an apocryphal disease, as both >>64 and >>65 describe behaviorisms incompatible within a given context. So, he may as well be criticizing himself. But I don't think his ego would allow that. Therefore if he wishes to at least save face he must accept that >>64's given condition was sufficiently apocryphal. Also, >>65 is, in general, quite fucking retarded.