The thing is, I'm not really interested in a blow-by-blow pseudo-discussion with someone who's convinced himself of some strange alternate view of events and re

The thing is, I'm not really interested in a blow-by-blow pseudo-discussion with someone who's convinced himself of some strange alternate view of events and refuses to acknowledge any challenge to this world view. I tried to cut things short and attack the sweeping, fundamental fallacy, but you insist on sticking to surface disagreements, perhaps as a way of shielding yourself. "Well," you say, "you make a good point, but you see my view of what constitutes 'widespread accounting fraud' is different from the standard view, but my uninformed view is right and everyone else's is wrong, so you're wrong, too. Also, I'm being civil." I'm not really interested in talking to someone who thinks like that, so I'm done.