Not everything has an answer and not everything needs to be answered. Given that you think subjective opinion is either objectively right or wrong, it’s incredibly obvious that the idea that someone would give opinion for consideration rather than argument is lost on you.

Your idea that mental disorders, and one’s opinion of it, constitutes a personality might have something to do with it.

Luckily nothing was asked, no answer was sought.

So the bar for you is generally knowing a non-zero amount of things about mental disorders but for others in this thread it’s having to know the person from the article?

Setting yourself up for an easy win by default there, smart. What’s not smart is apparently assuming you’re the only one in this thread that is even faintly familiar with mental disorders and therefore others must bow to your subjective opinion.

You don’t have to know any particular person to know that having a mental disorder doesn’t magically un-asshole them or shield them from all criticism; origin from disorder is an explanation, not an excuse. I know I’d never expect, or frankly want, anyone to suffer my presence if one of my many oddities caused them some kind of significant distress.

She’s probably just a braggadocious blaggard.

If the application of an idea is both in-line with its definition and shown to be inconsistent in foundation or correctness then the idea is either wrong, not sufficiently defined, or both. In lieu of a redefinition, it can be presumed wrong.

These are the natural shocks that test hypothesis and theory.

Websites actually just list broad areas, as listing every file/page would be far too verbose for many websites and impossible for any website that has dynamic/user-generated content.

You can view examples by going to most any websites base-url and then adding /robots.txt to the end of it.

For example www.google.com/robots.txt

Jokes on you, the rootkit is likely my own and I just forgot about it.