Nah. Using BOMs won't work.

For the rest -- you appear to take the greatest delight in finding that interpretation that is as close to 180 degrees opposed as is possible without shifting to a completely new subject.

You don't counter the arguements put forward. Instead, you introduce a subject vaguely related to the original subject matter, open with an obvious counter to a non-sequita not in in discussion, and then support that obvious arguement at length, with the implication that if you said "it is", then your opponent must have already said it isn't.

Shame! Positive arguments are so much more productive than negative ones.