the issue is that in such a message board format as this, it is likely that when someone authors a post that there may be *questions* about the post. more likely will there be questions when the original author offers two mutually exclusive points.

the subsequent "svelte" spinning by that author, when evading direct questions, becomes amusing. we should expect vacillation, cowardice, and lack of honor from such posters as we've enjoyed in the past, using handles like "puiu" and "robert". since the author in question resorts to similar evasive responses, what value can anyone place on his subsequent posts ?

the term "authoritative" was used because the poster "cyrus"/"puiu" stated that: a] he was requested by some board host to explain one of cant's post, suggesting that the poster "cyrus"/"puiu" had some superior ability; b] the the poster "cyrus"/"puiu" stated that he had in his immediate circle some "dozen mathematics professors" as confidants. even a casual reader might understand that the poster "cyrus" was implying some authority, deserved or not.

if the original posts by the "cyrus"/"puiu" author were intentionally malicious or fraudulent, that would explain why he is unable/unwilling to answer specific questions without the "svelte" spin. or, the issue might reduce to some childish prejudicial slant that he had which generated his initial criticism in lock step with a self-confessed ignorance of the content within can't post(s).

in either case, it doesn't appear that his future statements may offer any value above amusement. but this *is* the vodou board and his shallow criticisms could rank with the "alternate" methods of conquering this 21 game.