I'm sorry that you feel that way but, of course, given that you included it as you did it is no surprise.

However, the analogy you give for why you 'don't know' is not a valid one. Indeed, it suggests not any careful consideration or analysis of Mead's statement but simply something selected to support the general tenor of your argument.

None-the-less, I reiterate that, in my view, the article was generally a useful and well written one.