"lauded for my wit" ? - I obviously missed that - and it's not what I'm hearing. However I readily acknowledge that you're not alone in not liking quotations longer than a sentence here, some people think fb should only be about what one had for breakfast, etc.. :-)
Fortunately some Egyptians had a broader view of the potential of fb and used it for other purposes, including the dissemination of ideas, including the texts of work by a US expert on non-violent protest, Gene Sharp - you can check him out on wikipedia.
"saying I'm rancorous and repetitive doesn't actually make it true, now does it?" Obviously not, but others only have to look at the evidence to confirm it. You started with an attack, echoing a previous discussion, the rancour is evident. You wearily repeat your stupid point about the use of quotations - NB the thread started with Chloe using one. If you had half a mind you'd note that I use quotations to support points I'm making, as in the first one, an accepted intellectual practice. You do nothing to justify your "pseudo-intellectual" remark, but then you're (on the evidence here) clearly not an intellectual so how would you know the difference ?
When you do move from a boring repetition of "you use a lot of quotations", you fall flat on your face. Clearly it was a lie to say that I try to pass things off as my own when they're in quotation marks and with links, or are you just too stupid to understand that ?
Then you snottily call into question my qualifications, but clearly a degree in philosophy good enough to to accepted immediately to do a Ph D is not bad. So that doesn't work either and you quickly move on - to what ? What positive thing did you contribute to the thread ? A lame comment on the tram in Nice - after that, petty, rancorous repetition and a desperate resort to your qualifications and work record when challenged.
You should have kept to the promise to retire from the discussion early on - when you'd already said all you had to say, even then not worthy of note. You could have spared as all the sad spectacle of intellectual incompetence unaware of its own fatuity.
Oh, and the only quotation is from you - well, that's hardly fair to the remaining readers (if any - apart from you - full marks for dogged determination though :-)), so here's another, moving things on again (a notion quite alien to you), from memory:
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." Nietzsche
Imagination, uncontrolled by critical reflection can all too easily become conviction and religious dogma. Romanticism rightly praised the power of imagination, but it was Enlightenment rationalism which helped free us from religious dogma. Science has given us the wonderful combination of really imaginative ideas checked against the severe tests of logic and evidence. So, understood correctly, Chloe's quotation from Einstein is not preferring imagination to logic, just pointing out that this complementary pair work in different ways and that without imagination, logic has nothing to work on.
I know you will feel slighted by this return to the substance of the original quotation and by the reference to imagination and logic, those gaping omissions from your comments.