"...virtually everybody has my respect initially. I take a judicial view of it, you have my respect unless you prove yourself unworthy of it. Considering I respect most people, this says a lot for your idiocy. I'm permanently done responding to you."
1) You admit you appointed your self to a judgeship unless you will state who else appointed you. Also, attorneys and judges do not use run-on compound sentences in their judicial documents.
2) I did not prove myself unworthy, and you have not proven it either. Wil you are claiming to be a graduate student in science at Princeton, it is amazing how casually you toss around the term "proof."
3) You say you respect most people (should read "persons"), but I think you do not even know most persons in your life very well. To respect "most persons" in the entire world
would be an even more impossible assignment. Yet you have weighed in with your opinion about matters of historical vastness and national policy, so perhaps you are talking about the second case. You claim to "respect" most persons in the entire world even without knowing them. And for some crazy set of unproven criteria, you say you do not respect me.
4) You imply I exemplify "idiocy" as you call it.
Yet most persons in the world are less respectful of your academic standing. I served in the armed forces to protect the freedom of thought that shelters your long maturation process. Since you are still mentally a teenager in science, you are forgiven for your outbursts of anger. Heck, the same is true of Ruquist.