Why? Your answer is quite revealing as to why. To get the most aggresive response possible. To provoke. To defend the claim into absurdity.
No, why that particular hypothesis?
And I think it's disingenuous of you to play both sides of the fence. Here you admit to intentional provocation, yet above you try to admonish people for giving you such strongly-positioned responses; and you even try to argue that such "aggressive" responses are invalid (i.e., by not being "physical proof").
If it was your goal all along to "get the most aggressive responses possible," then kindly thank us for providing aggressive responses, apologize for having misled us, and withdraw your admonishment.
|