"Yes. You clearly do not grasp what a strawman is and what it isn't. Also, if you think you've found fault with "much intellectual resources", then you're demonstrating that you haven't much intellectual resources.
Generally - not exclusively. My usage of it is an older one, but still a usable one."
I don't think it's incorrect, I've just decided to use that with you since you seem to think you're smart.
"But... I didn't do that. I pointed out that you don't know what a strawman is - I didn't assert it. And I didn't then argue against it, but I pointed out that your recurring misuse of the term without learning from your mistake is making you look foolish." - You claimed my misuse of it is dishonesty which is clearly not true. It's either a misunderstanding from my part (stupidity), which automatically absolves any potential dishonesty, or actual intentional dishonesty, which would mean I fully understand that I'm bullshitting and am therefore not stupid. Unfortunately, I've made a mistake but still you can't have it both ways - which is precisely why I'm saying that particular one is a strawman argument - you're claiming both is possible, which is untrue. If you claimed that I was infactual however (instead of lying or dishonest), you would be correct. Which I would expect from someone with your grasp of language and grammar and the importance you put on in.
Unfortunately, as I've said, I've made a mistake and took most of your claims as "straw men" while they were in fact malicious misinterpretations or straight up lies.
