Rahvin wrote a reasoned, dispassionate post describing one specific type of error that you frequently make here. He then asked you to suggest how this problem might be addressed.
You could have denied that he accurately described your posting history.
You could have asked him to provide more examples if you were unsure what he was talking about.
You could have acknowledged that you understood the problem and suggested possible solutions to it.
You did none of those things. You didn't even acknowledge the specific problem he addressed. Instead, you trotted out the tired old martyr routine, the same thing that you seem to say every time someone comments on your apparent inability to understand much of the language used here.
This strongly suggests that you didn't understand the points that Rahvin made. It would be quite simple for you to dispel this suggestion; respond to the points that Rahvin actually made, either in one of the fashions I mention above, or in some other way that might occur to you. But the worst thing to do to try to dispel the notion is talk about completely different issues that have nothing to do with what Rahvin wrote.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung