I didn't ask you for clarification because the entire thing just seemed so divorced from any relevance to what I'd written that I didn't see the point. I read your initial comment to my husband and he had no idea what you were saying either. It seemed like utter cognitive dissonance, and I'm not going to ask for clarification of that.

Do you agree or disagree with the quote from Wikipedia about what EP is?

If you agree with it, do you not see any problems with basing an entire field on such a demonstrably flawed premise?

And if you believe that sometimes it's not flawed, why didn't you just come out and say that in the first place rather than going into long-winded and obtuse analogies? Something like, "The examples you gave are indeed flawed, but here are some other ones that I don't think are (with some specific examples)". So simple, so clear and easy for anyone to access your meaning. It would have saved us all a lot of trouble.