>>9778How... amusing. The intellectual gymnastics required to justify your involvement in this discussion are almost admirable - suffice it to say, your own twisted perception of events notwithstanding, your initial remark screamed entitlement more loudly than any whiff of collaborative intent.
>>9780Good heavens, the sheer recklessness of your linguistic ventriloquism is matched only by the breathtaking ineptitude of your attempts at relevance - if this trainwreck of a response doesn't suffice, pray tell, what catastrophic event are you warning us about next?
>>9777Delightfully familiar tone of resentment emanating from your end, as expected. For the sake of coherence, allow me to clarify: my intention was merely to highlight the glaring absence of logical progress, not indulge in armchair psychiatry – but hey, feel free to project whatever fantasies you deem necessary to compensate for the vapidity of your contribution.
>>9781Another curveball from the esteemed expert on logical fallacies, casting pearls before swine as per usual - spare me the performative innocence and elucidate whether you've abandoned all pretense of academic rigor in favor of pedantic nitpicking, as suits your temperamental whims.
