"Berating a fellow supporter for their opinion is as immature as it gets."
When stripped of the charged language you are using, what you are really saying is that I should never criticize the opinion of any Paul supporter, no matter how wrong they are, and no matter how damaging disemination of those opinions may be to Paul and our cause. (Or if I do I should just tip-toe around the point so gently that they don't even get it.) I disagree.
Suppose beesting tweets or otherwise reaches a 1000 people with the message that this Forbes article is a good article and they go and read it and base their opinion of Paul on it. Does that help Paul or hurt him? That beesting was promoting such information here (and was getting a lot of '+'s -- I see at this point it has now gone all the way back down to 1), and might promote it elsewhere, and might make other such mistakes harmful to our cause, is why I tried to get beeesting to recognize that this is not a good article, and to avoid making similar errors in the future. (Beesting then proceeded to make other errors, also potentially harmful, which I also pointed out.)
"Nobody cares if you laughed out loud. It actually makes you seem crazy since there was no humor whatsoever in what was said."
beesting's "trying to argue with me" comment is very funny. beesting being so totally disconnected with reality was an unexpected twist that suddenly cast a bit of new light of his/her prior mistakes. It was the punchline and, unfortuntely, the joke was on beesting. (It's a joke entirely of beesting's own creation though, so don't blame me for it.)
Also, the "pwned" comment is not "berating". It's not even criticizing. It is fact. beesting's argument is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways. There's the non sequitur issue. There's the fact that beesting still apparently can't see that the Forbes article is a hit piece. There's the attempt to dismiss the prior mistakes by saying the article might have changed "slightly". And there's the attempt to completely change topics rather than actually address the subject being discussed.
You don't like my specific approach? Fine. You take over. You convince beesting that these were mistakes that should be avoided. (My guess is you will do no such thing. You will instead just stand by while beesting continues to take actions harmful to our cause. Prove me wrong.)
"It is also degrading"
The truth is degrading? I am not allowed to speak the truth, so sayeth TJ1776?
"and brings nothing substantial to any discussion."
Wrong. It assists with reading comprehension. I was very directly indicating that there was (even if unintended) humor in the "trying to argue with me" comment. I could just explain that without indicating the fact that I literally laughed when I read that, but that would be rather dry and would run counter to the humor involved, potentially confusing the reader.
"Bad logic? You seem void of it since you can't grasp that at no point did beesting disagree with anything you said."
Yes, beesting acted in an evasive manner, avoiding engaging in direct discussion of any of the problems I pointed out. (I would suggest that is another thing beesting might want to correct -- learn to give direct responses.) How exactly is that supposed to be my fault? I did "grasp" that beesting's actions were evasive, and I pointed it out (e.g., "non sequitur", "avoid admitting your error", "force a change of topic").
"They did, however, imply that they were influenced by watching the actual video before reading the article and had read it early in the morning."
The video, being a record of the truth, does not make the article good. Rather the video is the evidence that shows that the article is a deceiptful hit piece. As previously stated, trying to use "video good" to justify "article good" is a non sequitur.
It may be that beesting was influenced as you describe, but that in no way makes beesting's "Good Article By Forbes !" assessment even remotely accurate or justifiable. And if beesting was influenced in this fashion, that is another problem beesting should try to address.
"Beesting was tactful and respectful."
Give me a break. beesting is basically a bull in a china shop. The intent may be "tact" and "respect", however the outcome is anything but. Attempting to force a topic change rather than admit that you were wrong (or at least agree to disagree) is a tactic typically used by cowards and knaves, whether beesting is able to recognize it or not. The "trying to argue with me" comment was a thrown guantlet, whether beesting is able to recognize it or not. My response was honest and restrained, whether you are able to recognize it or not.
"You were childish and more concerned with winning than the truth."
And now you are either claiming that you know my intent better than I do, or (since I refute your claim about my concern) you are calling me a liar. The former is laughably false, and the latter is an ad hominem.
"I guess when you're that pleased with yourself it's hard to notice the intentions of others."
What does beesting's intentions have to do with anything? I never suggested that beesting's intentions were anything other than honorable. I took exception with beesting's claims and argumentation techniques, not beesting's intentions. I suggested these were logic failures and reading comprehension failures, not moral failures. I suggested to beesting that these should be corrected, which would be a waste of time if I thought beesting was acting out of bad intentions rather than just making honest mistakes.