>>>You've disregarded explanations and examples and quotes and actions and court rulings and patterns of behavior, etc etc
>
>On the rare occasion that you provide examples and quotes and actions and court rulings, I try to respond directly. Disagreeing with your interpretation is not disregarding.
>
>>> so my "explanations" or anyone else's are pointless, which is why I'm not explaining this to you anymore -
>
>If an explanation is "a reason or justification given for an action or belief" then your explanations boil down to others being stupid or lousy himan beings, which in the end is your explanation for any dissent from your decrees. If you're going to stop doing that, then good.
>
>>> plus all that leads me to think you're simply trying to stir up arguments.
>
>With respect, the "stirring up" comes from the person who bursts in with belligerent decrees and disparagements that he can't substantiate or (worse) just keeps repeating even when rebutted.

Look when you clearly know the difference between me saying I think a person's decision is stupid vs calling a person stupid - you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've said - and obviously doing it on purpose because it IS so clear - for no other reason other than to stir up an argument on something that doesn't even exist. As I said I'm tired of explaining things to you that you already know just because you just want to start sh_it.