[resu_nimda]

> Wrong. It seems clear you all like making assumptions and treating them as unshakeable truth.

Can you explain, then, why 1) your original post was devoid of any such language, and 2) you dismissed my suggestion, which added some, as being likely to cynically have the opposite effect of what was intended?

I get what you're saying. People often do couch cynicism and trolling in pleasantries. Which makes it difficult to appear genuine when asking a tough question like that. But that means you have to try extra hard if you want results, not give up entirely and go full autism on someone that clearly isn't going to respond well to that.

[pwdisswordfish4]

There's a perverse irony in the way your responses here exude condescension while ostensibly trying educate and inform about the sort of things that people respond to. Although it looks like you came here to argue (which now explains the presumptuousness), I didn't, and I'm not wasting any (more) of my time indulging you.

> I get what you're saying. People often do couch cynicism and trolling in pleasantries.

No, apparently you don't, because that's not at all what I said or what I'm trying to say. Aside from failing at that, you almost succeeded at deflecting, but not quite. The attempt to change the subject and avoid responding directly is yet more reason to stop this here.

[resu_nimda]

> There's a perverse irony in the way your responses here exude condescension while ostensibly trying educate and inform about the sort of things that people respond to.

That's a fair point, and later last night I regretted having used some unhelpful rhetoric. I often struggle to resist that temptation. In my defense though I was only going toe to toe with someone who had already demonstrated a willingness to dispense with courtesy in the name of pure inquiry.

[pwdisswordfish4]

Shoehorning big words into a message usually has the opposite of the intended effect. This instance is not the exception.