My response went over your head, so I pointed that out

There is literally nothing in "my response went so far over your head.." etc. that is not insulting. Even if it were true, which I assure you, it was not, it would still be intentionally inflammatory rhetoric.

Since it didn't "go over my head" but I understood exactly what you were saying, what you pointed out was incorrect. Your response was fundamentally flawed in the premise, and thus the conclusion.

I didn't even disagree with your original post just added to it that the way the world is now we don't have any need to have somebody "represent" us, we can do it ourselves.

I KNOW that. I stated it in my original response, AND my follow up response. You are obviously not even reading what I'm writing.

You keep believing you understand everything though, I'm ok with that. I'm sure you are too.

My response went over your head, so I pointed that out

There is literally nothing in "my response went so far over your head.." etc. that is not insulting. Even if it were true, which I assure you, it was not.

Since it didn't "go over my head" but I understood exactly what you were saying, what you pointed out was incorrect. Your response was fundamentally flawed in the premise, and thus the conclusion.

I didn't even disagree with your original post just added to it that the way the world is now we don't have any need to have somebody "represent" us, we can do it ourselves.

I KNOW that. I stated it in my original response, AND my follow up response. You are obviously not even reading what I'm writing.

You keep believing you understand everything though, I'm ok with that. I'm sure you are too.

My response went over your head, so I pointed that out

There is literally nothing in "my response went so far over your head.." etc. that is not insulting. Even if it were true, which I assure you, it was not.

Since it didn't "go over my head" but I understood exactly what you were saying, what you pointed out was incorrect. Your response was fundamentally flawed in the premise, and thus the conclusion.

I didn't even disagree with your original post just added to it that the way the world is now we don't have any need to have somebody "represent" us, we can do it ourselves.

I KNOW that. I stated it in my original response, AND my follow up response. You are obviously not even reading what I'm writing.

You keep believing you understand everything though, I'm ok with that. I'm sure you are too.

just my original point went so far over your head I can't seem to place where it went

I know you aren't comprehending my response (the purposeful expansion of scope), because I assure you, I understood exactly what you were saying.

My response went over your head, so I pointed that out

I mean...

It didn't, so what you pointed out was incorrect. Your response was fundamentally flawed in the premise, and thus the conclusion.

If you can indulge for a moment that it was NOT true, and you pointed it out, perhaps you can see how that is insulting? Perhaps not. Perhaps that is beyond the capacity of your vision. You seem to have an issue with understanding a "larger scope."

I didn't even disagree with your original post just added to it that the way the world is now we don't have any need to have somebody "represent" us, we can do it ourselves.

I KNOW that. I stated it in my original response, AND my follow up response. You are obviously not even reading what I'm writing.

You keep believing you understand everything though, I'm ok with that. I'm sure you are too.

just my original point went so far over your head I can't seem to place where it went

I know you aren't comprehending my response (the purposeful expansion of scope), because I assure you, I understood exactly what you were saying.