>Your ignorance of the one fallacy you’ve referred to has now been proven beyond any dispute.<<
Your misunderstanding of the fallacy at hand doth not make my analysis invalid.
>>Do you now get credibility for expanding on your proven ignorance?<<
You don’t really “get” false dichotomy, do you?
I "get" that you are so vain you're actually trying to fly the idea your incorrect definition of a logical fallacy as classic as "John 3:16" is somehow a lack of sophistication on my part instead of an error on yours. ;o)