It's not poorly worded

For the target audience (ndt and those with similar worldviews), i say it is. Their reflexive response will be the "meniscus defense". Exactly what eisenhorn did.

I appreciate why it does not appear poorly worded to you, or perhaps to me - because we know exactly what he means and would not misconstrue it the same way others commonly would.

Only a disingenious dick would use an equivocation after being totally called out.

Lol, it is to be expected though. "Q: Why don't we see curved water? A: We do, they are called water droplets!", is completely reasonable and the expected/default response from those of the presumptive (and ubiquitously taught) worldview. Which is why such questions directed at them should be more carefully worded.

You're just enabling this pussy to act like a bitch

Lol. I think it is important to have empathy, and understanding in these interactions. Even when met with hostility and even belligerence. Irrational anger/ire against the topic is still earnest interest in it - after all! Many of us researchers begin our journey this way.

We can't, and shouldn't, take responsibility for their behavior - only our own! We should remember that these ostensible "opponents", assuming them earnest, are actually fellow students (or aspiring) with differing views. If our views are correct, and/or theirs are incorrect (or vice versa) - continued collaborative discussion/exploration is the most important thing. Argument is for idiots. There is no "winning" a conversation, and the earnest pursuit of truth (and further will to share it) is not a silly contest (nor should it be allowed to devolve into it).

It's not poorly worded

For the target audience (ndt and those with similar worldviews), i say it is. Their reflexive response will be the "meniscus defense". Exactly what eisenhorn did.

I appreciate why it does not appear poorly worded to you, or perhaps to me - because we know exactly what he means and would not misconstrue it the same way others commonly would.

Only a disingenious dick would use an equivocation after being totally called out.

Lol, it is to be expected though. "Q: Why don't we see curved water? A: We do, they are called water droplets!", is completely reasonable and the expected/default response from those of the presumptive (and ubiquitously taught) worldview. Which is why such questions directed at them should be more carefully worded.

You're just enabling this pussy to act like a bitch

Lol. I think it is important to have empathy, and understanding in these interactions. Even when met with hostility and even belligerence. Irrational anger/ire against the topic is still earnest interest in it - after all! Many of us researchers begin our journey this way.

We can't, and shouldn't, take responsibility for their behavior - only our own! We should remember that these ostensible "opponents", assuming them earnest, are actually fellow students (or aspiring) with differing views. If our views are correct, and/or theirs are incorrect (or vice versa) - continued collaborative discussion/exploration is the most important thing. Argument is for idiots. There is no "winning" a conversation, and the earnest pursuit of truth (and further will to share it) is not a silly contest (or allowed to devolve into it).