Now, I refuse to do the same as you've done back to you, quoting sentence by sentence, because the point never gets reached that way - you just spiral off, arguing about every tiny facet of the others' argument, right down to individual word choice. It strips everything of context and defeats the point of discussion.

As I understand it, your view is thus: "I could be wrong but Wayne's account of his experiences seemed unbelievable to me, therefore he must be lying. I thought it best to call him on it because people faking illnesses is detrimental."
My view is thus: "You have no bloody idea if his experiences are real or not, because you aren't an expert and are limited by your own personal experience. I think it's best not to call people on it because the more vitriolic you are towards people you've decided must be 'fakes', the less comfortable people with real issues feel expressing them, out of fear of receiving the same treatment."

I never accused you of being deliberately spiteful or cruel. I know that wouldn't be your intention. I also don't think that, honestly, you were seeking to help Wayne when you started this conversation. You were trying to call him out as a fake - which I understand, considering I know precisely how damaging those faking it can be (as I said, I've been there; you aren't the only one who knows anything), but on which my philosophy differs massively from yours. The core point of my argument was to highlight my view on this "calling out", and to get you to consider that maybe it could be detrimental. The way in which that point was presented was less than adequate, I'll admit, but I was hoping the core argument/the bigger picture would be taken into account rather than narrowing it down to word choice.

There is a difference between being privately sceptical, and deliberately trying to call someone out, in public, to prove them as a "fake". The former I fully support. The latter, less so, for the reasons outlined above. All I ask is that you consider that opinion - [i]without[/i] quoting every tiny word I say and trying to pick apart my argument as if defending yourself from a vicious personal attack, or, even worse, somehow "win" the debate. This isn't Off-Topic, a debate on a purely intellectual level regarding pros and cons of X political system or Y approach to Z. This is much more personal, and is merely a discussion.

As for the whole "insult" thing, forgive me - it wasn't meant as a personal attack or vitriolic insult, really. It was akin to calling your mate an asshat or whatever.

EDIT: I think, in essence, I felt the need to comment precisely because I know how important this is to you, and that the idea of somehow being detrimental to the struggles of people with mental illness would absolutely kill you. I felt the way you were acting was potentially damaging when you didn't intend it to be, and felt that should be highlighted as something you should consider in future.