Fred Bloggs writes:

And the below doesn't, Tholen?

Obviously it doesn't, Bloggs.

Obviously, Tholen? I disagree - it's a pretty good indication.

It's a pretty good indication of your reading comprehension
problem, Bloggs.

Classic inconsistency!

You're erroneously presupposing that what was below constitutes
antagonism, Bloggs.

It antagonises, to the extent that many people feel compelled to
respond.

If they feel compelled to respond, then perhaps they shouldn't have
posted the antagonistic, off-topic, or non sequitur material
involving me in the first place, Bloggs.

If that's not antagonistic, how come the posts which you feel
compelled to respond to can fairly be described as such?

Because I didn't do anything to instigate them, Bloggs.

As did the antagonist-in-chief.

I already noted that bisectional did, Bloggs. No need to repeat
it.

No need to repeat anything, really.

Then I can count on you to not repeat anything in the future,
eh Bloggs?