"Well, I think you're on the right track here, this is all great, I agree, but there's one point I take issue with, and it's this."

I don't think this is implied. I don't think you think I'm your intellectual equal, I think that you think I'm your intellectual punching bag. When you don't respond to other things I assume it's because you don't find anything interesting about it.

I mean, a lot of the things that intellectually stimulate me are not opinions. It's like, let's think about a plane crash. That's what gets me excited, and that's the kind of thing that doesn't need an argument - or, I mean, you could have one, but it's more the kind of thing that just invites more evidence, more stories, more weirdness. And I do want to hear bizarre opinions on things like plane crashes, but I want to synthesize it myself. Anyway what I'm trying to say is that I much prefer pooling data to having arguments, especially because I don't think I'm informed enough to have an argument. I like to bring things up but I don't have arguments about things unless I really really know what I'm talking about, and even then, you don't have arguments about things like plane crashes beyond the very technical arguments of what caused the plane to crash.