Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I'm glad that after 4 comments, you've finally gotten to stating a point. Unfortunately, your point is shallow and dismissive, rather than engaging substantively. It obviously doesn't seem silly to me. If you're saying it seems silly to you, an anonymous rando, I can live with that. If next time you would like a writer's help in understanding what they've written, try asking succinctly and with at least a modicu…
> Well I'm glad that after 4 comments, you've finally gotten to stating a point. I stated my point quite clearly at the very beginning of this thread. Did you miss it? > Unfortunately, your point is shallow and dismissive, rather than engaging substantively. In what way is requesting evidence for an implausible extrapolation "shallow and dismissive"? > If you're saying it seems silly to you, an anonymous rando, I can…
It's not about the quality of your point. It's about who's worth my time. This is the internet, where I can be in contact with most of the planet. As I explained long ago in my bio here, anonymous people with bad attitudes get less leeway from me. If you want conversation, you have to be worth it.
In addition, when you introduce words like "silly" and "implausible", you are either a) asserting you have a technology that allows you to objectively measure those qualities in discussions, or b) asserting that you have some expertise which makes you a more qualified judge than the person you are talking to. Presuming for a moment that it's the latter case, you're the one who has introduced yourself as the arbiter of all that's right and true. It's within bounds for me to point out that from my perspective you demonstrate no qualities that would make you the expert you are acting like.
You are of course welcome to have any impressions of me you like. Again, the feelings of anonymous randos are not high on my list of concerns. Less so, of course, for the ones who start out a discussion with the assumption I'm a fool.