This is monstrously patronizing. I have no delusions that people are “out to get me.” I simply recognize disrespect when I see it–and I, apparently unlike you, am able to distinguish simple disrespect from delusional paranoia, while you conflate the two. And when it’s inappropriate to the setting (e.g., a CS thread about a movie) I feel a strong urge to call it out. That simple. Now, obviously, my life would be simpler if I just let the people who choose, for their own [insert patronizing psychobabble here please, Colibri] reasons, to be causelessly disrespectful in CS. Maybe someday I’ll grow up enough not to be so easily riled by childish disrespect. Until then, I guess I remain prime troll fodder.
(Your case, however, still flabbergasts me, to the point where if I had your hubris I’d speculate in a similarly patronizing manner about your motivations: you ignored solid cites on easily verifiable facts because it didn’t “sound right” according to your daily experience, when in fact it was specifically and explicitly irrelevant to your daily experience [being a matter of legal arcana, rather than colloquialism]. I still goggle that a scientist of your apparent caliber would elevate your own “common sense” above multiple authoritative cites. But whatever; no sense in rehashing; nothing I’ve said here is not a repeat of the original thread, and we both dropped it long ago. Anyway, I pointed out that your suggestion that I was disingenuously changing my story, which I denied doing, was in fact to call me a liar. None of this would be disputed by any rational person . . . outside of a pit blanket party, that is.)
Now here, in this case, clearly it was suicidally stupid of me to rise to Walloon’s troll bait. But his rat-a-tat-tat multiple posts served to hijack the thread, in my mind, from being about the movie to being about whether I had factchecked deeply enough to determine that the movie had been played 8 and 10 years earlier. The absurdity of this hairsplitting, coupled with the sarcastic noise of the hijack, deserved, I thought, a response. And the fact that many people have agreed with me on those original points bears that out.
However, since this thread has–inevitably–moved on from those original relevant points to ad hominem amateur psychoanalysis (I once thought a great deal better of you, Colibri; I would have named you in my, say, three favorite and most respected Dopers), I’ll drop this: the grownups have made their points and moved on, so I will too.
