False, you said you were merely
curious. teh presence of that word makes your comment a lie, since you have since given another thing that you were interested in besides
that which you claimed to be curious about. Where did you get the asinine idea that I may have taken it as a demand? And why would you assume it was even possible for me to believe that I was obligated? Are you under the misguided impression that a question is a demand and that others are obligated to answer your questions? Only an idiot would entertain the foolish notion that they are capable of deducing another person's position on a matter without reading what they have already written and without asking said person about their position (perhaps to reca that which they have already said and what said person is willfully remaining ignorant of). You've admitted to willfully remaining ignorant of what had previously been stated in the thread, now
you are saying that you were also remaining willfully ignorant of my position on things despite the fact that you were curious about that position in order to deduce (presumably with magic) what my position is. I suppose if that' show you roll, so be it.Because I
am the only
person who has ever existed with the ability to satiate another person's curiosity about my
positions on a subject. That's not arrogance, that's just having a firm grasp on reality. Are you under the arrogant delusion that you, on your own, are better qualified at explaining my positions than I am? Did you forget what it was that you said you were curious about? Of course not. When people say that they are curious about my
positions, I take them at their word. Are you telling me that you were also lying when you indicated that your curiosity was about my position?