From a discussion which begun with http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2007/07/24/mrc-nbs-bozell-hannity-colmes-tonight-about-mags-derogatory-soldier-tales#comment-393926:

Sarcasmo,

I reread my initial post and tried to see how it could have set you off.  I deliberately kept things as neutral as possible given our track record.  Then I figured it was because I didn't give you the answer you wanted, either one in complete agreement or one that would serve as an appropriate vehicle to launch into your compulsive talking points.  But, even when I have agreed with you there was no escaping your wraith. Maybe it doesn't matter how I answer in order to be spared your invective or obsessions.

Your replies in general have been juvenile, aggressive, taunting and insulting both contextually and grammatically.  Even when someone agrees explicitly or implicitly with you, you have a propensity to attempt to dominate them with a snarky comportment, then have the audacity to wonder why anyone would have a negative reply.  Your posts reflect an insecurity in that you immediately go on an aggressive defensive to any perceived threat to your ego.  Your responses using non sequiturs and feints are attempts to control the dialogue. 

Examples:

I discuss the one case you presented in broad brush strokes.  You complain I don't address the other physicians you believe have been mistreated throughout history.  Huh?

I discuss how and why physicians' run afoul of prescriptive practices.  You bring up an estimated number of undertreated pain patients.  Huh? 

I agree that maybe the executive of the pharmaceutical company deserved prison sentences.  You inject your mantra of tax and spend drug war and Ron Paul.  Huh?

I stated, not admitted - unless you were deposing me, physicians are approaching the treatment of pain more cautiously due to a variety of reasons of which prosecution is a concern.  Your reply is "that's MY point" and then ask "What's your's?"  Huh?

I meant browbeaten in the context of prosecuting and/or sentencing of criminals.  It was not about your tax and spend drug war or Ron Paul obsessions.

"So I take it you disagree with this guy from the first not-so-carefully-read link above?" Nice job of putting words into my mouth  - haven't you complained bitterly about in the past when it applied to you?  I had not discussed that issue up to that point.  But, I do recognize your mediocre insult.

"If UNF professor Ronald Libby's wrong, then I suppose there's no problem."  Juvenile and sarcastic. "If the reason it's all in my imagination is because you know of a single pain specialist who has so far gotten away with practicing pain medicine then you'll have to pardon my constant doubts and continual linking to Reason articles covering the subject, I guess..."  Ignorant, insulting and condescending.  Nice job hitting that trifecta.

"And, needless to say, my original point about the different "justice" system treatment of big political contributing pharma-execs and docs stands, despite varied and creative attempts to change the subject."  There was zero attempt to change the subject on my part.  My initial post addressed the part of your argument I felt knowledgeable in discussing.  I then responded to your other point(s) when confronted in your reply.  You used the subject of misdirection itself to misdirect the topic - Bravo!  

For a self-claimed proofreader, you really should look up the word "taunting" and then do some soul searching to see how that term might apply you.

You may not count on me to confirm your opinions when the data is not, in my opinion, supportive or incomplete, shirk from your attacks because you are a bully, feed your inner troll, nor chase after your unicorns just because you say so.