Saw that on another thread, and it reminded me of you. Cheers.
Moi? You must not have a dictionary to look up "indignation": "strong displeasure at something considered unjust, offensive, insulting, or base; righteous anger."
As far as fake indignation goes, this is pretty good: "Don't be concerned with me. Just be aware that you may not know what you think you know when you are posting your non-sequiturs that you use to ridicule others. That borders on the paranoid."
So's this: 'To repeat, "Your arrogance is affecting your judgment, and it is becoming obvious to many people here.'
And this is pretty good, too: "You are the one around here that absolutely insists that validity rests in "peer review", and you must now apply your own qualification to non-sequitur's source, who, as you admit, is no more than some undergraduate who published a term paper on line."
But I don't think you have a patch on DomainMaster for indignation faked: "Your slushy commentary does not change the facts: You posted a quote that misquoted an original source and act shocked that it should matter. You continued to support the erroneous out of context meaning delivered by your quote despite being exposed and continue to deny its importance."
It all has to do with what I said earlier:
That seems to be the strategy: pick something to get indignant about and harp on it for a long time. Then you convince yourself that you're really on to something, that you've somehow uncovered the fatal flaw in someone's argument or character, when really you're just being a pain.
If you can put someone else on the defensive and wax on and on about some supposed deception, you figure you've "won" in some way. All the better if you get someone else to melt down, or if you simply label their responses "meltdowns." It's all a very familiar game by now.
It's all about fake indignation (or indignation faked) with you guys. Don't put your problems on my head (or I may get indignant as well).
We need to remember a time when the USA was more civil and not insane...