It is correct that I have completely side-stepped your frame and not even attempted to engage with it. This is on purpose, because wanting people to engage with

It is correct that I have completely side-stepped your frame and not even attempted to engage with it. This is on purpose, because wanting people to engage with that specifically engineered frame is exactly the bad faith mechanism I've described. What is interesting is what happens when these tactics are called out in a meta comment like I did, because it's actually a common thing that people start flailing like this once you side-step the script that was supposed to be followed. Someone acting in good faith would not counter with an attack and a double-down like this, but with intent to resolve the situation (+ probably feeling a bit bad about an exchange having failed and being misunderstood). I also like the "hyperventilating" claim. Easiest way to get out of a situation is to invalidate the source, and easiest way to do that is to claim emotions. And the fake concern (for what, even?) of course. > For your own sake, I'd also suggest editing or outright deleting your original post. ___ Anyway. I think the convincing people is actually working quite well here. Though not in the sense you'd think. I'm just pointing a spotlight at what I believe is violating the spirit of the rules (while staying within the letter of the rules). What other people make out of that is their decision to make.