All alone, I agree. But this was not a one-off event.
But go back to the beginning of this thread, carefully note the topic as depicted by the title of the thread which asks, "
What Windows is overall the best to you and why?" Then note how he argues and refuses to accept the opinion of any one who indicates they like Windows 11.
If one is sincere when asking for another's opinion about something, then they would respect that opinion, even if different from their own. Clearly, the OP does not.
In post #5, he told Onasi how Onasi should think.
In post #12, after Onasi explained his position in #7, the OP said, "No". And then indicated Onasi had the idea wrong.
In post #14, Solaris pointed out the thread was supposed to be about which is our favorites. That fell on deaf ears.
In post #15, the OP accused Onasi of ignoring the success factors of each version. What does that have to do with which version Onasi preferred?
In post #35, he called W11, after others expressed it was their favorite, an "absolute failure...".
In post #44, he questioned FoulOnWhite for paying $5 for something that lacks "Aero" - yet FoulOnWhite never said anything about Aero.
In post #54, after Am* said he liked Windows 2000 Pro, the OP countered by saying BSODs had "very regular appearances"
In post #57, he falsely claimed that W11 was one of the "least secure windows releases ever", "open with back doors" and added more totally incorrect claims after more posters commented they prefer W11. He even went so far as the change the words (and thus meaning) when quoting another - in this case, me.
In post #190, after chrcoluk said he liked the innovations in W11, its security model, and feature set, the OP argued "It is a regression on all levels, missing features (the time seconds in the bottom right corner, many apps, etc.), worsened ergonomics."
Then he went on in several rants about missing seconds and the calendar going away and other gripes - HIS OPINIONS (some based on falsehoods) that had absolutely nothing to do with the opinions of others that he asked for.
Yes, he's entitled to his opinion, as long as they are based on the true facts. That does mean he's entitled to claim others' personal preferences are wrong - and especially not when their opinions are based in fact.
In post #201, he argued with chrcoluk over what constitutes an "innovation".
In post #207, he argued with Lex after Lex pointed out there are a number of alternative solutions to the MS calendar. I note many of which are free, but the OP complained about spending more money.
Then of course, his signature makes it clear with "slava the trolls" which means "Glory to the trolls".
He doesn't want other's opinions, unless they align with his.
I will say this, "my bad"
for falling for the click-bait. So I'm truly outta here.