For the future HN reader: > If I described someone as always smiling... Even if we pretend, for the sake of argument, that "always" doesn't mean "always", and

For the future HN reader: > If I described someone as always smiling... Even if we pretend, for the sake of argument, that "always" doesn't mean "always", and that they didn't mean it like that in the first place and then changed the goalposts when they were called out on it, they're still making an insane claim - either out of malice, or clinical insanity (e.g. you think that you can read others' minds). > I have responded thoroughly to your weird nitpicking They very clearly have not. They still haven't admitted to either insanity or malice in their statement >>> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” Note also the repeated attempts to distract from this wild claim with fallacies, misdirection, and emotional manipulation: > You're very self righteous in your indignation, so much so that you would rather repeat the same thing over and over rather than actually converse. ...and then, of course, the root of the whole argument was their failure to read and understand either Crocker's Rules or the author's point: >> This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective. ...which is, of course, factually an incorrect understanding or response to either the author or Crocker. > I responded directly to your claim that I mischaracterized the author's point by showing how they misunderstand Crocker's rules. And yet again we see that they're incapable of using logic, and are just operating emotionally, because... > You even quoted it but you apparently didn't read it. Failure of reading comprehension strikes again - I already responded to this point, and they completely missed it: > You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules, so this isn't really relevant. This is factually true. Their comment "This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective." is wrong and irrelevant regardless of whether they're responding to the author or Crocker. It does not matter whether the author got Crocker right or not. The objective truth is that this user's arguments are irrelevant to both. We've already gone over each of these points at least once above, so if we keep looping, this is probably a bot, and I'll just stop responding after another marker for future readers.