Where it is self-evident that a commenter did not read my post, I act accordingly. It is standard practice on this forum for people to reply without reading the post. People have even written posts with a deliberate twist in the second or later paragraph to prove it. It is easy to people who have not read the post. They universally either make a statement that misses the point of the post (usually because they only read the title) or ask a question that is already answered by the post. Even in these cases, where a good point is made, I do respond to that. Almost every comment so far has been by somebody thinking I am refering to class balance rather than gear balance, presumably based purely on the title, and I have a standard response for that, too. Some commenters disagree without articulating any reason. It is pointless replying to those, and they are automatically under suspicion of not having read the op. About four people so far out of seemingly hundreds of comments have actually disagreed and given reasons for disagreeing,. They are a tiny minority. If you look hard enough you will find those and see that I have responded. In summary, where somebody disagrees and has explained why, I have engaged with them, but where people have either not read my post or just posted empty rhetoric there is no point writing a personalised response so I don't.

Except that the only way you engage with them is maybe one sentence, then you just copy and paste the same 3 mini paragraphs of text that you say to anyone else, regardless of whether or not it has anything to so with what they're saying. I'm not saying there aren't people who are posting without reading, but about 80% of your responses are "you didn't read my post" and then the same copy pasta mini paragraphs. Surely you have to realize that at some point its just you not wanting to hear opposing opinions.