But, sure, keep it up. Keep insisting most accounts with throwaway in the name are not by and far actually throwaway accounts, because that's just so gosh darn reasonable. Heh.

Heh. I've never seen someone so stubbornly dig their heels in to avoid being wrong to such an extent, well not for a year ot two at least.

> More ad hominem. It seems to be all you have. :)

I don't think you understand what an ad hominem actually is.

The ad hominem was in accusing me of someone trying to dig themselves out a hole, when really, that's just you for having said something silly, acting arrogant on top of that and blaming the community, while continuing to deny a well established convention because you can't accept being wrong. It's the only reason you're still replying.

I'm not, I think you're ego is preventing you from admitting you said something silly, however.

> Your entire argument is predicated on this completely fabricated statistic.

It's not fabricated in the least.

> I’m the authority on my own emotional state

Sure, that doesn't mean what you claim is honest however. Plenty of people would claim to be joking when they were anything but, for all sorts of reasons.

> as a native English speaker I can assure you that our dialogue thus far comports perfectly with someone who was speaking tongue in cheek

Native English speaker here also, and I can assure you that your dialogue thus far also comports perfectly with someone who was not speaking tongue in cheek, but asserted they were so they could hopefully put an end to a conversation that was started by calling them out for something silly.

> but who also doesn’t mind watching people try to dig themselves out of holes they created for no discernible benefit

Funny, that's what I'm watching here. It's a hobby of mine to recognize people who can't admit when they are wrong and need to have the last word, taking it to an extreme level. There isn't much more to be gained from this conversation since you refuse to be reasonable and acknowledge longstanding convention regarding the naming of throwaway accounts, but I am curious how much longer you will drag it out.

That's just not so, friend.

Again, when 99.9% of usernames with the form throwaway+random number string are throwaway accounts, it's reasonable to assume any account fitting the pattern is such an account, because odds are astronomically high that it is. This has to do with something called convention, and I'd suggest reading more on that topic and how it can affect inferences.

Whereas, there is no indicator about how any account may tie to the experience of the person posting behind the account. It's as useless a metric as account name itself for trying to gauge that, and honestly, that should be obvious.

> is that my account age remark was tongue in cheek while you joined the fray to defend drawing conclusions from a username.

You put the emoticon to indicate a perhaps tongue in cheek response, bur the rest of the text and conversation didn't really support that, nor do the continuing replies.

I merely corrected you when you tried to say it wasn't reasonable for people to assume an account named such as yours is a throwaway, because it very, very much is.

Come on.

I would say Ada SPARK solves this problem.

It's clearly much more than that.