It's called analysis, and it's not my problem if I understand what you've said before you do.
For example: Paulus made a statement from his direct experience, and you have refused to accept his veracity. You counter with "I am willing to guess that statement was complete Mac-Wishful-Thinking (see Nonsense) and you have absolutely no data to back up this claim."
Do you think there is anyone here that doesn't know you wouldn't accept the veracity of any data what-so-ever if it didn't fit your predetermined conclusions. We all understand there is literally nothing he could say to get you to question or re-examine your own opinion. The only one that doesn't know that is you, and you're quite comfortable attributing the conflict that comes from such pig-headedness to mac-owner intractability.
Talk about clueless.