OK it seems as if we have two misunderstandings. No worries though, this is a discussion, as you said. Let's clear them up and get the discussion moving forward.
1. You never said but I did. and I acknowledged that you didn't because I saw this coming: This is why I said to go back and read my reply again. I had it in there. 
But my point is that even if the source isn't there, the idea will stay. Any method used to get rid of the source, whether one corrects it (like you suggested Roop ji) or whether one kills the source (you didn't suggest this but it happens e.g. taliban), will not get rid of the idea. Becaseu you can't get rid of the idea like that, targetting the source is a bad strategy.
2. You didn't request to have your views under scrutiny but I said I will examine them closely if you can provide reasons that support what you said.
Scrutiny: (examination) the act of examining something closely
------------------------------
Ok I hope that clears things up. Now to examine your reasons,thanks for providing them :
I agree!! I addressed this in my response to Seeker ji.
Ok waiting for reply now.
by the way, my english isn't very good either, I am trying to improve it
