Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am going to do this once, but not again. Please pay attention to it. You are not just wrong, but failing to demonstrate an understanding of the actual topic being discussed. I can't say whether you actually have it or not, but your responses do not demonstrate this. I have dealt with plenty of people on this site who say things that are factually incorrect, many of whom have argued with me when I do so. You are not…
Sounds like you are arguing with a bot? em-dashes are a giveaway (nobody sane uses these "—")
My policy about interacting with a person using a bot is actually the exact same as it is when interacting with someone who writes their own comments. This is actually very convenient because it completely eliminates any arguments about whether or not they are using an LLM or whether I have some sort of "bias" against them. My core argument is this: I treat the content coming out of it as being said by you. In this case the comments were of substandard quality. If the user was writing them by themselves, then the hope is that they will read my message and realize why and improve themselves in the future. If it was done by consulting something else, the idea is that they should reconsider the quality of its output. Either way, they're the one who comes out of it looking poorly.