The plain fact is that Garfield has run up against a wall of rational discourse to which he cannot get around without resorting to red herrings and straw man arguments.
He will not attempt to deal with the data as presented since this is empirical, therefore he attacks the character of the researcher. This, my friends, is a dishonest tact. I suggest we not feed into Garfield's additional red herrings and straw man arguments, this is what he would like: discuss anything but the empirical data already presented.
Such is the future of the Republican party? Will conservatism continue to be faced with the influx of those with weak cognitive abilities while opposition parties see the inclusion of those with higher cognitive function?
It would seem this thread is demonstrative of that trend.
ET assertions appear to hold. That is to say, Garfield:
"A) [doesn]'t understand it
B) [is] aware that [he] would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid."