> I was replying to someone who suggested sandboxing by raising a couple of places their suggestion falls short.

No, you created two straw men and attacked them, then got upset at me pointing this out, while accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing.

> Or just assumed “anyone suggesting sandboxing wouldn’t work must be an idiot”?

Why, when we could assume malice instead?

> Because you’ve managed to misrepresent my comments at every opportunity.

Maybe it's your comments that are the problem.

> No, you created two straw men and attacked them, then got upset at me pointing this out, while accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing.

I’m not upset at you. I’m just saying you’ve misread the thread and then proceeded to make invalid remarks because of that.

> Maybe it's your comments that are the problem.

I’ve managed to have a civil conversation on this topic with everyone else. Including the person you think I insulted (which I didn’t).

> I’m just saying you’ve misread the thread and then proceeded to make invalid remarks because of that.

Once again you accuse me of exactly what you have been doing.

The other commenter calling your response "disingenuous" is putting it mildly.

You’re not even attempting to discuss the topic, more interested in make meta attacks about me personally. So I think it’s now safe to assume you’re just trolling. In which case I’ll return the favour by adding you to the ignore list.

Pity though, I would have been interested to talk to someone who was passionate about this topic.

> You’re not even attempting to discuss the topic

This would be why I started the thread.