(which did not in fact show that the post before it was "diametrically wrong on all counts"

Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your threading expertise by giving supporting arguments to his assertions?

a belief that sundialsvc4 was explaining something to you

To whose post did he respond?

Taking a direct reply to me as being addressed to me is "self-centred insecurity"? I think you've (literally) lost the plot.

After politely acknowledging your reply, he replied to the original poster in a helpful manner. I don't know what set you off there -- probably some personal problem; but, as your sig says, "silence betokens consent", and I don't consent to him being bullied.

After politely acknowledging your reply, he replied to the original poster in a helpful manner.

No! He did not. a) he didn't reply directly to the OP at all; b) there is nothing "helpful" about misinformation.

and I don't consent to him being bullied.

So you'd rather see this serial poster of misinformation be allowed to disseminate his crap unchallenged, thereby wasting the time and energies of all those who mistake it as useful, just so as not to offend his sensibilities?

That's like accusing the Allies of bullying Hitler.

By Godwin's law the discussion is now closed.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.