Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

==== I’ll label each distinct claim/argument F1, F2, …. Some are counterfactual recommendations, some are motive/character attributions, some are normative gatekeeping. ====

===== F1. “You could have said: ‘My bad… That makes sense.’” =====
* Claim: A reasonable/appropriate response from Greg would have been a brief acknowledgment/apology + acceptance of OP’s clarification.

F2. “So, why didn’t you? What were you protecting…?”
* Claim: Greg’s behavior is better explained by self-protection (ego/status/identity defense) than by simple misunderstanding.

===== F3. “You only further tripled down on exaggerated appeal to authority, intellectual arrogance…” =====
* Claim: Greg continued to lean into “I’m a clinician” as a credibility weapon (and did so in an inflated/arrogant way).

F4. “…appeal to ridicule to shoot the messenger rather than the message…”
* Claim: Greg used ridicule/dismissal to attack OP (the person delivering the critique) instead of engaging the substantive points.

F5. “…and condescension.”
* Claim: Greg’s stance/tone is condescending.

(F3–F5 are all “rhetorical evaluation” claims: they interpret Greg’s prior comments as instances of certain fallacies/behaviors.)

===== F6. “You just confirmed exactly what I thought was the case.” =====
* Claim: Greg’s “You gotta be kidding me… block me” response validates OP’s earlier interpretation (that Greg was behaving in a predictable, bad-faith / status-protective way).

===== F7. “Your self-deceit here…” =====
* Claim: Greg is self-deceiving in this interaction.

F8. “…makes it hard to believe you know how to teach people things you yourself don’t know how to help yourself with…”
* Claim: Because Greg can’t self-regulate/engage well here, he’s not credible as someone who teaches these skills to others.

F9. “…including that you have a problem that needs addressing in the first place.”
* Claim: Greg has an underlying personal/professional issue that he isn’t recognizing, and it needs addressing.

===== F10. “To everyone else… this is exactly what I was talking about…” =====
* Claim: This exchange exemplifies the kind of behavior/dynamic the pinned guide warned about.

F11. “…and probably in more ways than one.”
* Claim: The match between the guide’s warnings and Greg’s behavior is multi-dimensional (not just one issue).

F12. “Thanks for the real world example.”
* Not really a claim; it’s a rhetorical closing that reinforces F10/F11.

===== F13. “If you can’t handle your criticism being criticized, this isn’t the place for you.” =====
* Normative claim: people who can’t tolerate pushback don’t belong in this sub (or won’t be accommodated).

F14. “That was covered in the post you skimmed.”
* Claim: The guide explicitly addressed this expectation, and Greg skimmed rather than read it.