u assert that my initial statement to kowalski re faith is naive. u say this without stating any reason and without showing any understanding of what i have said.

a mere flippant comment that holds no weight, quite simple really. my statement re ur blatant ignorance didnt need elaboration as its quite clear, but for claritys sake ive just highlighted it anyway.

If anything, in the circumstances it fell on u to elaborate why u thought my statement was naive.....just sloppy mate

please educate as to why u think my statement was naive