Compare this:
I do not claim that the basic point (...) is false. I do claim that the way the_lion conducted himself during the discussion (...)
with your claim above the he was “divorced-from-reality”.
You didn’t quote the second sentence fully:
...stopped including a willingness to engage with facts
It’s still the same idea: The Lion was wrong, and refused to be corrected.
Perhaps instead of “divorced from”, I should have said “adversarial to”?
Or maybe I should have just left it at “adversarial” and not bothered bringing up the relation to reality at all.
Compare this:
with your claim above the he was “divorced-from-reality”.
You didn’t quote the second sentence fully:
It’s still the same idea: The Lion was wrong, and refused to be corrected.
Perhaps instead of “divorced from”, I should have said “adversarial to”?
Or maybe I should have just left it at “adversarial” and not bothered bringing up the relation to reality at all.