My point that the destruction of the Temple should be taken ascominfg at the end is based on more than simply the formulation of the question asked in Mark and Luke. The most important point is the absence of any explicit or even clear implicit reference to the destruction in Mark or Matthew's versions of the Discourse. Even given Matthew's version of the question we should expect the distinction between the signs of the Temple's destruction to be made distinct from those of the End of the age and the Second Coming if there were indeed a long span of time between them.
The only way to find the destruction in Mark and Matthew is to take Luke's apparent reference (evading the question of how Mark and Matthew failed to make it clear) and match up the verses. But that identifies the siege of Jerusalem as the time of the Tribulation. Which is still unacceptable to Buzsaw and many other Christians.
And yes you're spot on about Buzsaw's behaviour. And other Christians should take note - if Buzsaw is unable to admit that he does wrong he is unable to truly repent of it. And we know what happens to unrepentant sinners according to Christian doctrine.
™ Version 4.2