Would have been far less contentious. Now it’s just the question of “Is the recipient of a contentious response the victim or the villain?”
… and here comes the “I require you to not use this style of writing” vs. “I am required to read it more neutrally”. See: I didn’t read @karolus words as insulting - so there definitely is a way to read them so. So just accept that taking it as definitely insulting is more a personal decision / matter of your cultural bias.
From my answer above, you might even see how I didn’t even understand initially, what specifically you considered bad there in those comments. I read that as you disagreed with @karolus opinion that this works as intended - and I wrote so. Only then you explained that what you called “defend the indefensible” was “breaking the protocol”… which underlines that those comments might be read much more constructive.
Neither, my answer was just pure irony, and should help you to reflect your own perception of time spans. Obviously the latter has not succeeded!
I really have no idea why you chose to focus on 2 - 3 seconds. My issue was how to obviate all the wasted time and effort involved in the remediation of CALC stealing focus (and data) from a Google sheet I was actively processing online through Firefox.
Perhaps the follow up comment concerning Google dumping it in the Spam folder was misleading - I should have asked straight away why he thought his answer was helping solve the problem. You may not realise that as Karolus used Swedish and I had to use Google to translate it I then made my own flippant comment about not speaking “Troll” despite living next door to Tomteland🤣 - a reference that any Swede who has ever been a child, had a child or intends to have a child would immediately comprehend". The response waste everybody’s time with an english translation for 2 - 3 seconds. Priceless