I suggest that hot coffee in a cup that boils or does not has nothing at all to do with Mao.
The supposed contention is that Tee has misstated a case in one instance, and therefore because he might have erred on a post about coffee, his opinion of Mao is also incorrect.
This does not compute. Or if it does, please explain why and how.
Well, like I said, I was chastised about trying to keep a post on topic before, so apparently it's not viewed around here as being reasonable for some reason.
Besides, it came up when Mikey asked a question, to which it WAS a relevant response.