You clearly don't understand the full implications of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is clearly a theory that the authors seem to feel is "subject sensitive." i.e., that an examination of a subject who thinks he knows some 'large or small' amount about some specific field has significant implications on how much he knows in a sort of recursive fashion. Put more plainly, "those who think they know the most are numerous on both ends of the scale." Some are knights and some are knaves, to use Smullyan's model.
But not so fast. A number of things you claim here are false assertions you've made and cleverly propped up on one another.
Your first sentence-paragraph doesn't even represent a complete thought; it is the essence of an entirely emotionally-based and free-from-logic response, and it is thrown, at least ostensibly, as a "tomato" at someone you imagine has "ill used" you or your words. You are angry, and your response begins with sputtering. Not very surprising.
You appear then to sarcastically 'thank me' for comparing you to Musk--which I did, though only in the sense of "both of these two made curiously similar mistakes" after PROVING conclusively that both of you actually WERE making mistakes:
You made the mistake of thinking you can insult people--which at the first didn't even include me--and then you made what I wish hadn't been such an utterly predictable mistake of insulting me when I pointed out that insulting people doesn't get you anywhere. Did it quite plainly. Used almost a nursery rhyme that you might easily have heard before kindergarten: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
You defined yourself an enemy, even though I *STILL* am not one. You essentially said that I took a posture of "holier than thou" even though I specified that my opinion is that people shouldn't throw stones in [this specific way.] I pointed out that Elon Musk has publicly declared that a person should listen to his or her critics.
And the first thing you do is this:
1. Identify what I said about what you said as a criticism, an unfair one, as such a stone, and then
2. Took it apparently as an attack against your person, almost to the extent of legally being one (at least as you asserted) and then
3. You hastily prepared one (an insult, an attack) you thought you might throw right back, because you certainly believed you were the wiser, despite probably knowing in your heart that the punch you had in you to throw at me had nothing of the sauce you apparently dreamed it could.
Do I care for insults? Just so much as I find them interesting to take apart for the people who lob them around like they're Christmas candy.
And yes, that's the closest thing you're going to actually get by way of an actual "insult" to you. The simple observation that you throw insults around awful carelessly. I won't even go on to observe that most times when people do that, they're insecure. That most times it really does appear that they're trying to 'make a shield' using someone else--usually that they admire, but sometimes that they really don't like--by claiming they agree or disagree wholly with respectively. In an effort to claim that they are in THIS camp, the RIGHT camp, not THAT one, the WRONG one.
You do strike me as the kind of person who might well think he's "just fine, well, at least I'm not Hitler."
Who might actually think they're not "very" bad. At least they're not Hitler.
Really? You DO think there's a difference, now don't you? You think "small insults are okay, but...well, there are 'big' ones too." And you're the one prepared to cite all the examples and rate them, you know, if you chose to do that, too.
No, THAT is funny. It's morbidly amusing that you think there's a distinction between poking someone in the eye--not just for no GOOD reason but for NO REASON AT ALL and Hitler.
Because there fucking ISN'T.
Legal precautions? Which card from amongst your dozens of many-splendored decks did you pull to find that one? What "legal precautions" do I need from anyone? Are you even so full of hot air that you're suggesting I have committed some kind of tort for which you can claim recompense, or even that I was trying to avoid one by couching my opinion as an opinion rather than acting quite as you do: as though you were in possession of the full 'gospel' of the truth?
The funny part is that brains so "capable" as yours tend to readily "knock down six figures a year" or more. That this society is so utterly simple and its systems so utterly predictable that even YOU can sit back in your writer's chair and find yourself confident enough--by a quick check of whether your wife is sufficiently attractive, smart, obedient?, whether your bank account is "well taken care of and far into the black", and, most amusingly, whether lots of people agree with you to think you know literally ANYTHING about ANYTHING.
You want to try your luck in a game of wits, is that it? Well go back to your fucking garage and get your fishing pole then, Captain Ahab. Because this journey is far longer than the short bus you wistfully looked at while pissing on a fire hydrant with a dunce cap placed around your neck so that you wouldn't scratch your paws at the ears that I just clipped.
Plus, you wouldn't even be able to chase that short bus or the little red haired boy name Tommy who kicks your fence every time he walks by the ten foot diameter circle of dirt you paced into the ground around that quaint little dog house you call your own.
Why?
Because you've been measured, you've been leashed, you've been potty trained, and you've been found to be worthy of just so much leash as I gave you. Not one bit more and not one bit less. You: The defender of a person who you apparently think both needs defending and doesn't need to be defended at the same time.
A papier-mâché champion in a room full of brightly lit torches in the form of a mangy dog that can hardly go "woof."
Hell, I think I'll call you Snoopy. At least until you catch fire. You certainly snooped your ass along the wrong street this time.
