Pigs are not more intelligent than dogs. That's flat out misinformation, and you are propagating misinformation, i.e. spreading a myth every time you repeat that false information.
I don't think I'm being rude, although I don't have a lot of patient for people that willfully spread misinformation.
Maybe, just maybe, do some more research other than believing what the first link in your Google search results brings up.
One source has been posted thus far, and it contradicts what you've said. In fact, the entire first page of Google's search results for "pigs vs dogs intelligence" brings up nothing to support your point. (Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality.)
It's (IMO) somewhat rude to demand compliance without supporting your position.
> One source has been posted thus far, and it contradicts what you've said.
That source is hardly credible now, is it? As far as I'm concerned I'm treating it with the respect it warrants.
> Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality.
The key is, as you say, low quality sources. It's a bunch of corporate blog posts trying to get clicks perpetuating a myth, just as corethree is so proud of doing.
> It's (IMO) somewhat rude to demand compliance without supporting your position.
I can see that. But, if we agree that an onus is on those who make a claim to support it, I don't think we should consider copying and pasting whatever link comes up first from a google search as supporting it.
The real issue here is that it doesn't particularly make sense to directly compare pigs and dogs like this at all. They have different kinds of intelligence, both of which are still being studying, and both stronger in areas where the other might be weaker or not have a showing at all.
That's why I'm not just providing a single source - because there isn't one, not that wouldn't be as low quality as what corethree provided making me a hypocrite. It's a complex issue that requires explanation and citations from multiple papers, and I didn't see corethree's post as being worthy of the effort that would be required in such a reply.
I will make the final notes that as far as I know we don't have evidence of pigs being self-aware while we do with dogs [0] and no pig has ever accomplished anything even close to what some of the world's smartest dogs have been able to [1][2].
I'm open to the possibility that pigs might be smarter than dogs, but I've seen no compelling evidence to support that claim at all. Just gullible people perpetuating the first thing they read.
> Thank you for posting sources, you should have done this in the beginning.
It wasn't for you. Instead of saying I should have done that in the beginning, really, you should have done so since you made the claim, and you should have done the bare minimum research to realize your claim was bullshit and not perpetuate it.
> Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow through. No offense.
> As a result I will not be following your sources and I will be ending this conversation. Thanks again.
That's fine. I don't really care about any of that. Instead I will just ask that you try to do better in the future and not perpetuate misinformation due to laziness.
Please don't respond to my thread nor impolitely reference me or accuse me of things if you're going to post things that aren't for me. I already stated this conversation is over. Walk away now. Do not respond me.
But you're talking shit about me under my thread which my comment is the parent to my face. You're starting shit. I've literally told you I don't appreciate your attitude and you're still starting shit.
I have done nothing wrong. You may disagree with me but disagreement isnt an offense and your actions in response are uncalled for. I'm not walking from this thread. This topic was started by me so I stand my ground.
You're the party starting shit and in the wrong. You're the one that needs to stop.
Common courtesy is not to run your mouth on the Internet because your shielded by anonymity. Treat the situation like real life. I am looking you in the eye in front of your face and politely requesting you to Walk away now.
You can choose to be an ass and continue acting rude by not walking away. That's your right. But just imagine what that would entail if you did that in real life. Unfortunate that real consequences aren't enforced on HN. This thread getting flagged already is a big indicator that you crossed the line.
> But you're talking shit about me under my thread which my comment is the parent to my face.
So what? I said you were perpetuating a myth and you were. It still not 'your' thread, what kind of childish nonsense is that?
> I've literally told you I don't appreciate your attitude and you're still starting shit.
Because I don't care what you think at all. I was talking to someone else and you decided to insert yourself because of this mistaken belief that it was 'your' thread. Most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite some time.
> I'm not walking from this thread. This topic was started by me so I stand my ground.
This is honestly hilarious. Walk, don't walk, I don't really care. But you have no ownership of the thread or right to tell me to stop replying. Go touch grass.
> Common courtesy is not to run your mouth on the Internet because your shielded by anonymity.
I made valid criticisms. You made a claim, only lazily supported it with a low quality tabloid article, defended perpetuating a false claim and refused to change your stance after I attempted to educate you. That makes you willfully ignorant, and I have no time for you. I will keep replying to you until this conversation runs its course though due to nothing else than curiosity.
> Treat the situation like real life.
In real life I'd ask you not to perpetuate myths or spread misinformation, and call you out if you tried to defend doing so with a crappy blog article as your source.
> You can choose to be an ass and continue acting rude by not walking away. That's your right.
And you can continue coming back trying to claim ownership of the thread and needing to have the last word because I called you out for laziness and intellectual dishonesty.
> But just imagine what that would entail if you did that in real life.
The same result? You complaining and being upset I dared to call you out?
> This thread getting flagged already is a big indicator that you crossed the line.
Actually the comments where I correct you and call you out are upvoted and not flagged at all.
I haven't crossed a line. I told you you were wrong, dismissed your low quality source, asked you to stop perpetuating misinformation, and then in response to someone else provided sources to show just why you were wrong and perpetuating misinformation.
You then tried to claim ownership of the thread and order me to not comment any further which is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen on HN.
Look. You can admit you were wrong and that you were perpetuating misinformation and just move on, or you can keep needing to have the last word and coming back and trying to defend your behavior be talking about how 'rude' I was, but the more you do the latter, the worse it reflects on you.
>So what? I said you were perpetuating a myth and you were. It still not 'your' thread, what kind of childish nonsense is that?
Please do not say things like that here. It is "my" thread. I opened the topic for discussion. You are free to comment but taking it over with bullshit like this is rude. It is mine in this sense. Do you note how I didn't insult you here and you used the word childish? You need to walk away again.
>Because I don't care what you think at all. I was talking to someone else and you decided to insert yourself because of this mistaken belief that it was 'your' thread. Most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite some time.
If you don't care what people think. You don't belong here. It's actually against the rules here to be rude and say things without care. You'll actually need to leave this entire forum should you continue.
>This is honestly hilarious. Walk, don't walk, I don't really care. But you have no ownership of the thread or right to tell me to stop replying. Go touch grass.
I know you don't care. I'm telling you now, not appreciated at all to laugh in peoples faces and be rude.
>I made valid criticisms. You made a claim, only lazily supported it with a low quality tabloid article, defended perpetuating a false claim and refused to change your stance after I attempted to educate you. That makes you willfully ignorant, and I have no time for you. I will keep replying to you until this conversation runs its course though due to nothing else than curiosity.
You made a counter claim with zero support. Then you purported to cite sources that offered zero information on pig intelligence vs. dog intelligence. Just a bunch of articles and Wikipedia on dog intelligence and how great it is. Everybody knows Dogs are intelligent.. but more intelligent then pigs? You offered nothing. I never said dogs were stupid, your evidence only serves to disprove a point I never made. A bunch of useless off topic evidence that goes nowhere. The point is this: Pigs are more intelligent then dogs.
Additionally all your sources were just as casual and weak as mine. Random internet articles and wikipedia. None of it strengthened your argument because it was both off topic and the same level of quality as my evidence.
Overall your argument was weak and you not only were rude but you violated your own tenets by offering weak and irrational arguments. You even claimed that "you could" accept the fact that pigs were intelligent.
Hey take a look at this, or don't it doesn't matter at this point:
It's the only scientifically peer reviewed paper offered so far in this thread. The highest offer of available empirical evidence which you repeatedly failed to offer. It didn't need to be offered but since you wanted to go to war on this, I offered it. It describes intelligence tasks where pigs beat dogs. There's more on this topic, it's not well researched but the available evidence points to pigs overall being smarter. You can try to argue against the only scientific article here if you want but there's a salvo of other research studies ready to fire on you once you're done. The popular "myth" perpetuates itself on actual scientific studies which you were unaware about.
>Look. You can admit you were wrong and that you were perpetuating misinformation and just move on, or you can keep needing to have the last word and coming back and trying to defend your behavior be talking about how 'rude' I was, but the more you do the latter, the worse it reflects on you.
I'd rather have the last word. I'm human just like you. I was too lazy to actually dig through the internet to actually find you the raw science behind it. But you pissed me off enough to make me spend the effort.
I'm not even making a pathetic effort to sort of worm my way into being right. It's a given that my point is much more obviously the higher supported theory here. A casual google search confirms it ALONG with the science.
You were being manipulative with your arguments and you know it. Weak sources and a weak thesis as well. You got upvotes only from people who didn't follow a single one of your sources. And you stated you're "I'm open to the possibility that pigs might be smarter than dogs" which is lol. It just shows you couldn't find anything definitive. Such are harsh way to bring the hammer down on me when you're "open" to me being "right".
Do you do this kind of thing in real life? Like when you're not sure about something and someone makes a claim about it, you just attack them out of nowhere and demand solid proof when you're wishy washy about it yourself. Hey it's fine to disagree, maybe next time just say, "I'm not sure there's enough science that confirms that for sure" rather then declaring it a "myth" and then being "open" about it later.
Look man, when I say pigs are smarter then dogs I say it like any human says it. With just a vague knowledge of the science without a hard "absolutely" "100%" pigs are smarter. Any rational human will know that and not rudely just proclaim it to be a myth. The science shows evidence that pigs are smarter. It's not overwhelming evidence but it points to the fact that it is the most likely truth. That level of evidence enough for casual conversation which is what's going on here in this thread which you failed to be socially aware about.
Tell you what. You may be open to me being right, but I'm not open to you being right. I claim there is much more science demonstrating pigs beating dogs on intelligence tasks then there are dogs beating pigs. I'm not wishy washy about shit here.
Now throw in your next wall of text and we can continue on this until you run out of things to say because I'm not just right. I'm obviously right. You're the one trying to scaffold the evidence into a shaky foundation for your claim. Good luck.
Anyway, the main faux paus here isn't "not doing research" or flawed citations or anything like that. You've done plenty of that despite your hard ass claims to the contrary. The main problem here is you're not acting civil. You're acting rude. And you've stated you don't care.
That is Against the rules here and I'm sure if any admin saw you talk this way repeatedly without care you would be banned.
I admit I am defending my last word now. But prior to this I was not defending my last word. I was making a statement. A statement saying I find your attitude offensive and I don't like to converse with you at all and I wanted to set the tone that it must end. That was the point. If it looks bad, so be it, but I did not act with malice which is contrary to what you did here.
This is honesty funny, that you've written this much.
Well, let's get into it!
> Please do not say things like that here. It is "my" thread.
No, it bloody well isn't. The sooner you can accept and understand that, the happier you might be.
It is astounding to me that you don't understand how ridiculous your claim and behavior is in this regard.
> You don't belong here. It's actually against the rules here to be rude and say things without care. You'll actually need to leave this entire forum should you continue.
Again with giving orders that you have no place to give.
> I know you don't care.
Then stop wasting your breath?
> You made a counter claim with zero support.v
You made a bullshit claim with no support at all. You just copypasted the first link you found. That doesn't count as supporting your argument, buddy.
> Then you purported to cite sources
That you thanked me for providing lol. Then you said you don't care enough about the topic to actually look into them. Except now you're in this bizarrely insecure trap of needing to have the last word and not be wrong, so here you are, trying to dispute them.
> since you wanted to go to war on this
I didn't want to go to 'war', lol. It's fascination how you see this interaction. I just called you out for being wrong and not doing any research and perpetuating misinformation, and well, you didn't take that well. You still can't accept it.
> I'd rather have the last word.
Yeah, you've made that clear lol.
> I'm human just like you.
You're also deeply insecure unlike me.
> But you pissed me off enough to make me spend the effort.
Nah. You're still just copying and pasting things without understanding them. The first comment that you previously thanked me for still applies and your paper doesn't dispute anything I've said.
> I'm not even making a pathetic effort to sort of worm my way into being right.v
That's literally all you are doing.
> It's a given that my point is much more obviously the higher supported theory here.v
I mean, tell yourself whatever you need to to avoid taking an L, I guess.
> And you stated you're "I'm open to the possibility that pigs might be smarter than dogs" which is lol. It just shows you couldn't find anything definitive.
Because unlike you I can handle being wrong, but evidence and consensus does not support that point.
> You were being manipulative with your arguments and you know it.
Not remotely.
> Weak sources and a weak thesis as well.
No, my view is the consensus view, actually. Your view is the one perpetuated by people who believe the first thing they read.
> You got upvotes only from people who didn't follow a single one of your sources.
I got upvotes from people who actually read what I wrote and understood the reasoned argument that was made.
> Do you do this kind of thing in real life? Like when you're not sure about something and someone makes a claim about it, you just attack them out of nowhere and demand solid proof when you're wishy washy about it yourself.
When someone is lazy and spreads misinformation I certainly try to gently correct them and if they want to be stubborn, I might try to embarrass them to put them in their place, sure.
> Look man, when I say pigs are smarter then dogs I say it like any human says it.
Not just any humans, but the types of humans who just believe whatever they read first and then defend it because they don't like to be wrong, and then might write long essays of nonsense when if they had just spent 5 minutes of research initially it all could have been avoided.
> The science shows evidence that pigs are smarter.
lol, no, it doesn't. Sigh.
> Tell you what. You may be open to me being right, but I'm not open to you being right
Or to rephrase, you're not open to being wrong. That's been your problem from the start.
> Now throw in your next wall of text and we can continue on this until you run out of things to say because I'm not just right. I'm obviously right.
lol, again, tell yourself whatever you need to avoid feeling like you lost.
> Anyway, the main faux paus here isn't "not doing research" or flawed citations or anything like that. You've done plenty of that despite your hard ass claims to the contrary. The main problem here is you're not acting civil. You're acting rude.
Nah. The only issue that started all this what you adorably think is a 'war', is you perpetuating misinformation and being called out on it. That's it. And I wasn't rude, I was direct, and your ego didn't like that.
> That is Against the rules here and I'm sure if any admin saw you talk this way repeatedly without care you would be banned.
You've honestly been much ruder, barking out order and trying to claim ownership of the thread, which is just sad and ridiculous.
> I admit I am defending my last word now.v
Well you already did earlier, but it was obvious from the start that you were this type of person.
> But prior to this I was not defending my last word.
Sure. Whatever you say.
> If it looks bad, so be it, but I did not act with malice which is contrary to what you did here.
I didn't act with malice I just pointed out you were wrong, that's it.
Anyway. As amusing as this is I don't have the energy for another wall of text so I might make one more reply, maybe, and then I'll let you have the final word so you can feel like you won and this horrible ordeal you are putting yourself through will be over.
You called me adorable, you laugh in my face and make dismissive comments. These words are stated by you to start a fucking war. Any reasonable person can see this.
And your counterpoint isn't even charitable. Just a statement of "you're wrong" without concern to my offered evidence, no counter evidence from your end and specifically twisting and picking out specific quotes and pieces to respond to while ignoring the entire paragraph. Manipulative and Classic malice. There's really no point in saying any of this. You know it, your actions are fully intentional.
You're literally the definition of a malicious person.
> I'll let you have the final word so you can feel like you won and this horrible ordeal you are putting yourself through will be over.
Thanks. But you didn't need to say this right? What's the point? Again, malice is literally the only reason. Either way. Finally you are walking away.
> These words are stated by you to start a fucking war. Any reasonable person can see this.
Eh. Is it a war if only one side thinks so and is fighting, and the other is amused?
Your other reply was deleted - I wonder what horrible things it said?
> And your counterpoint isn't even charitable.
It was a nuanced reply explaining the current consensus position and why the idea that pigs are smarter than dogs is a myth, but you have overlooked and dismissed it because you are viewing it through a very limited binary of right or wring, winning or losing.
If 'winning' a silly discussion on an internet forum means such a big deal to you, then I think you need to reevaluate your priorities and do some self-reflection.
> You're literally the definition of a malicious person.
Nah. All I did was tell you you're wrong and call you out for it, and then you got all defensive and uppity after claiming you provided a source and continued to, and still continue to falsely claim you are correct. Why? Because ego. Nothing to do with me being 'malicious'.
> Thanks. But you didn't need to say this right? What's the point? Again, malice is literally the only reason.
Highlighting your need to have the last word because you equate it with winning. This behavior/need of yours isn't exactly knew to us who have been around for a while now.
> Either way. Finally you are walking away.
After this reply I sure am :)
You're going to come back and have the last word because you need to. I hope it fills whatever voids or gives you satisfaction enough to distract from whatever issues are bothering you.
I'm going to ask that in the future you do as I originally asked and do a little more research and not perpetuate misinformation. I know you are going to need to respond with some retort so you can gain what you think is ground, something about not being 'malicious' or whatever, and that's fine. Say what you need.
But even if you can't admit to it or want to act dismissive in your reply, I hope you will do what I ask upon reflection - please don't perpetuate misinformation knowing, due to ego or any other reason. It can be very harmful.
I won't be replying again, and would ask you never reply to me again or initiate a discussion with me, as I prefer not to interact with people who act as you do.
>Your other reply was deleted - I wonder what horrible things it said?
Looks like you aren't leaving even though you said you would. I wrote that I wasn't going to read your shit. I changed my mind. So I deleted it.
>Eh. Is it a war if only one side thinks so and is fighting, and the other is amused?
Whether the other side is amused or not is irrelevant. What is clear is that other side is deliberating acting amused. Right? What you write here is not a reflection of your actual feelings or thoughts, it's just what you intend to express as your feelings or thoughts. Whether that's real or not is irrelevant.
So what's the intent of acting amused? Of course it's to start a war. It's malicious. If you were amused but not malicious you wouldn't act amused because everybody knows the consequence of acting amused in front of an angry or emotionally distressed person.
It's a common strategy when someone wants to trigger a more emotional person. Just constantly act amused. Such actions are usually artificial in nature because a person in distress does not normally trigger amusement unless the other person is a psychopath. Do you truly get amused by pissing other people off? Whatever. Whether you are amused or not is, again, irrelevant. It's your intent of displaying you are amused that is the tell here.
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. All I did was tell you you're wrong and call you out for it, and then you got all defensive and uppity after claiming you provided a source and continued to, and still continue to falsely claim you are correct. Why? Because ego. Nothing to do with me being 'malicious'.
You don't call people out by calling what they say a myth. And then leaving it at that. It's quite rude and It's also against the rules to do that here. 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. You completely skipped over that part and are attempting to address the part of the reply in which you have a chance to "win" in your dominance game. That is pretty much clear now. I offered a scientific paper and you have offered nothing else beyond that. Clearly it's because you have nothing else beyond that.
If you truly thought you were right you wouldn't be using malice as a strategy here. You would be using facts, evidence and logic. You would be sticking to the topic because that would've been an avenue for you to win the "game." Unfortunately it's not a way to win and you're actually the only person playing that game.
>After this reply I sure am :)
Good. Walk away now. Do not respond. Stay true to your own words and Thank you for doing so.
> Whether the other side is amused or not is irrelevant. What is clear is that other side is deliberating acting amused
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.
>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.
If you are actually amused then you're a bully. This statement here shows you like to bully people younger then you and laugh in there face. You enjoy angering people and triggering them. But I don't believe this statement. I think you're not being honest here.
I don't think you're actually amused now. But we both know it's clear your intent on overtly displaying that you feel amusement.
>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.
Arrogance? You left out the part where I thanked you for leaving. Now you want to stay and ignite the conflict even further? Does conflict "fascinate" you? I don't think it does. I think you're only pretending.
I think it's the dominance game at play. You want to play it till you win. The problem is, I'm not playing the game. You're just playing it with yourself.
>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 don't hate you. But I do think your a malicious person. I think you're not moral nor a person I would trust ever with anything. But I don't hate you.
Im not sure what your implying here as the key sentence. Why don't you stop being vague ish and just spell it out so we can explicitly point by point examine every facet of our arguments.
>Looking forward to your next reply. Cheers.
Yeah. I'm not. But I will respond. Would appreciate it also in your reply if you just stick with your point and not have to overtly display how "amused" or how "fascinated" you are at this whole thing. I already know your intent here so doing that is just repetitive on your part, thank you.
Nah not a bully. If someone is acting in a particular way that doesn't really make sense and is kind of embarrassing, and that I can relate to, then amusement is a natural reaction. There is no malice necessary or implied in such a reaction.
> I don't think you're actually amused now. But we both know it's clear your intent on overtly displaying that you feel amusement.
Well you can believe whatever you like since clearly you're disregarding anything I claim, lol.
> Arrogance? You left out the part where I thanked you for leavingv
Because it was drowned out by you arrogantly giving orders.
> Now you want to stay and ignite the conflict even further?
This isn't really a conflict, this is just something interesting. You types of people who need to have the last word, I'm always fascinated how long you will keep it up for. How long until you get bored or give up? Will you still be here replying in a month? It's fascinating.
> I think it's the dominance game at play. You want to play it till you win. The problem is, I'm not playing the game. You're just playing it with yourself.v
Again you can believe what you like, but even if we go with your hypothesis...you are clearly trying to play the 'game', or you wouldn't keep replying.
> I don't hate you. But I do think your a malicious person. I think you're not moral nor a person I would trust ever with anything. But I don't hate you.
That's good. I don't hate you or think you are malicious, just deeply insecure and unable to handle being wrong.
> Im not sure what your implying here as the key sentence. Why don't you stop being vague ish and just spell it out so we can explicitly point by point examine every facet of our arguments.
Why should I have to spell out something for you that is clear? The only reason you don't know what I'm referring to is because you glossed over my comment. Here's a hint: "not enough evidence".
> Yeah. I'm not. But I will respond.
Of course you will. You have no choice.
> Would appreciate it also in your reply if you just stick with your point and not have to overtly display how "amused" or how "fascinated" you are at this whole thing. I already know your intent here so doing that is just repetitive on your part, thank you.
That's up to you. If you make a comment only sticking to the subject and facts, then so too will my reply.
That aside, if you would stop spreading the myth, that would be better for everybody.