What fascinated me was that, even laying out my awareness of the "neverending fractal of bullshit" tactic and making it clear it wouldn't work, we went around in a similar circle — and Chris didn't seem to see any problem with this, just so long as he thought that even if you couldn't be fooled into wasting your time addressing his claims on the original topic under the mistaken belief that he was coming to the table in good faith, he might stand a chance fooling you into wasting time arguing about why you weren't willing to waste time arguing with him.
It's not a 'neverending fractal of bullshit' - it's two emails showing that the term was used before they claimed to have coined it. I showed a second after you complained it was just one. Are they bullshit? Why? I'm not going in in a circle - I'm still pointing at these two examples you haven't explained yet.
At the moment you've just entered a conversation, said you don't agree, then refused to explain why when asked, and complained that you'd be a fool to reply. Why get involved in the first place when you don't have any arugments to offer?
