I don't think you're angry. Since you're calling me aggressive, it does seem that you're projecting that on to me, so maybe you really are angry. I don't know. I don't like to presume these things. But I don't see why you accused me of ad hominem in a post that was about me. So I am perplexed at that, and at the fact that you seem intent on making this personal, beginning with your thinly veiled jab at Docta Corvina -- which she is too agreeable to confront you over and which I initially ignored in order to give you the benefit of the doubt -- and continuing with your misinterpretation of my post. But there's no aggression, unless you think disagreeing with you is some sort of attack.
Once again, there was no jab, thinly veiled or not, as I have adequately explained. Said explanation was also accepted by the supposedly offended party. As the topical discussion between us closed some time ago, I suggest that we call it here, as I am sure that neither of us have any real interest in arguing about what the definition of 'is' is.