A simple "no, I don't understand" would have sufficed.

Let me put this as simply as I can: Your statement offended me. When I informed you that your statement was offensive, you countered by stating you weren't being offensive. I then affirmed that I was offended and further gave you examples of how not just I, but anybody would find your statement offensive. You're now arguing that I'm offended.

CORRECT.

I didn't post that link to demonstrate that I know more than you, I posted it to demonstrate that I can and have had extremely in-depth, extremely nuanced discussions about this very subject.

But I won't have it with YOU unless you make an effort not to offend me.

You can be as militant as you want. What you're supposed to take from our discussion, however, is that I'm under no obligation to have a discussion with someone who goes out of their way to offend me. You didn't start our discussion with "It sounds like you're saying X" or "Are you saying X." You started it with sarcasm and straw men.

So what am I supposed to take from that?

That you don't start discussions here with antagonism.

I don't know where you came from (that's a lie). I'll reckon things are different there. Around here? We start civil discussions with civility.

And if you'd like to take a step back, apologize and rephrase your questions in a form largely devoid of scorn and sarcasm, we can have that civil discussion.