Well, no.
You're saying that whether or not I am actually amused is irrelevant, because you're just deciding/alleging I am acting amused.
I'd say whether or not I was actually amused or not is certainly relevant to your claim that I am only acting amused.
FWIW, I'm amused because I recognize your behavior as that of someone quite young. I acted similar ways 20 years ago and now I think it's just kind of funny to see in other people.
> So what's the intent of acting amused? Of course it's to start a war. It's malicious.
No no no. There is no 'war' except in your mind. Again, I simply called you out for being wrong and spreading misinformation. That's it, and it normally wouldn't be a big deal to most people. But you took it really really personally and decided to go to war over it. And here we are.
> What you're doing is more of a dominance game. You play it well, but unfortunately this isn't the place to play that kind of game. It's not the place to act malicious.
Nah, there is no game, although that you see this as one is an interesting insight. I agree this is not a place to act malicious, which would include trying to claim ownership of threads and ordering people not to reply, of not taking responsibility for perpetuating misinformation and getting angry when called out for doing so, etc.
This is also meant to be a place for high quality intellectual discussion, and you betray that and bring this place down by perpetuating misinfo and linking crappy blog articles and pretending they are legitimate sources.
> You don't call people out by calling what they say a myth.
You were told you were wrong, by someone who clearly knows more on this topic than you do.
What you should have done is investigate and realize you were wrong, instead you felt the need to defend that you are right regardless of if you are or not, and so working backwards from that goal you found some crappy source you thought you could use to try and convince people. It didn't work, and now you're mad and digging your heels in. It's intellectually dishonest and this is not the place for intellectual dishonesty.
> But in addition to that your claim is flat out wrong, your evidence irrelevant and weak as well and you didn't make any effort to prove otherwise.
No sport, I'm absolutely correct. It appears you still didn't bother reading my reply because all you can see is winning/losing/right/wrong, no room for nuance.
There is a key sentence in the reply to the other user that I put effort into (since they were friendly and humble unlike yourself) that addresses that nuance, and I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind and without hate/spite in your heart.
> I offered a scientific paper and you have offered nothing else beyond that. Clearly it's because you have nothing else beyond that.
No, it's because I know I'm confident in what I claim and because you have established yourself as a bad faith actor not interested in determining objective truth only interested in trying to win and avoid being wrong, regardless of what the actual truth is.
It's much more productive, rewarding and fascinating to put effort into correct you in this discussion, it's like a lab experiment or something. How long until you will be able to let it go? Who knows, but we will find out. For science.
> Good. Walk away now. Do not respond.
If it wasn't for this arrogance I may have. But now I'm going to reply to every reply you make just to see how long you stick with it. I'm as curious as I am fascinated.
Looking forward to your next reply. Cheers.