How do we know if he would have gotten to any other parts of the book since Ben couldn't take the first few questions. If you are going to be someone who throws around your opinion like an AX then maybe you should also be just as good when confronted on those opinions.  If the expected behaviour is that you get upset and mad then you did not perform to your own level.  The fact you keep defending Ben when even he doesn't defend his attitude himself shows more about you then Ben.

I will keep spinning and denying your opinion and you can continue to be the apologist with the bucket full of excuses.  I am more than happy to record that for you.

Well I would know, if he started asking legit questions, and continued to ask legit questions. The interviewer had every chance to focus on the book, but he did anything but. How Ben reacts is his problem, not the interviewers. That's how you should know.

Glad you finally admitted it. It's the first step to curing yourself.

Sure he had a chance to focus on the book if the person being asked the questions would have answered them instead of getting upset like a petulant child.  Ben was treated with big boy questions and failed to answer in big boy style.  Instead he got exactly what he dishes out and responded in kind.  Maybe next time he will do better.  He will have his mask on and be ready to perform or he will go back to his echo chamber where everyone agrees with him and he can say the interviewer was unkind to me.

I am more than happy to make you happy.  I will not waste your time with 2 paragraphs of worthless analogies and always give it to you straight whether you agree to it or not.

If the person who was supposed to be asking questions about the book, did that, then Ben wouldn't have felt the need to react as he did. Cause and effect.

Pretending to make a deal with someone, only to immediately spit in their face when meeting them, then crying foul when they start punching you in the face, is going to end up being seen as the spitters fault, whether the punching was an overreaction or not. If they would have tried to work out a deal as initially stated and then just left, they never would have gotten punched in the face.

Well you're doing a lousy job. Nothing but straight talk and no analogies. Constantly fighting this reply depression makes me feel like a... victim?

This has hit satirical levels of stupidity.

There is a mass shooting. Some people try to start a debate on how to prevent mass shootings. Some other people say that it's not time for political discussion. Everyone sends their thoughts and prayers. Nothing substantial happens. Repeat.

There is clearly a way of preventing mass shootings, because almost 200 countries are able to prevent them. Yet, in the United States, it keeps happening again and again. And yet, some groups refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem!

If the person who was supposed to be asking questions about the book, did that, then Ben wouldn't have felt the need to react as he did. Cause and effect.

Pretending to make a deal with someone, only to immediately spit in their face when meeting them, then crying foul when they start punching you in the face, is going to end up being seen as the spitters fault, whether the punching was an overreaction or not. If they would have tried to work out a deal as initially stated and then just left, they never would have gotten punched in the face.

Well you're doing a lousy job. Nothing but straight talk and no analogies. Constantly fighting this reply depression makes me feel like a... victim?