> First, we notice the comment isn't an actual question, as there is nothing to actually be answered.

You noticed. My answer got 11 upvotes so far, so I think it was far from obvious without a careful reading, which I did not give it.

> This is a clear indication that its usage is therefore that of rhetoric.

Rhetoric is the art of writing or speaking effectively. It does not mean 'a questions which does not require an answer', which is a type of rhetorical device, but certainly not 'rhetoric'. I wouldn't bother mentioning this except you started the lecturing so I am proceeding in kind.

> This is likely why they didn't respond, as there was nothing informative you could say unless you are significantly updating the premise which is being mocked.

I don't try to ascertain the motives of people's non-responses. Guessing one option out of infinity seems like a losing game if you do it consistently.

> Second, the diction and pattern of the sentence matches a commonly user sarcastic pattern of "wait, you're saying x but y?!"

Sorry that I am not as up to date on meme phrasing as you are. Or maybe you are retrofitting a pattern after you already established it?

> As far as sarcastic comments go, this is about as blatant as one can get.

After re-reading it carefully, you may be correct.

> Even my sarcastic addendum ("Is sarcasm dead?") is less obvious than the comment.

You wrote 'honest question'. That is not sarcasm, not even a little bit. If you intended it to be, then I will absolutely call you a liar for using that terminology because some things should be taken literally and 'an honest question' is one of them. Like the 'biohazard' sign, it should never be used improperly, and if you are trying to press it into use as a non-literal phrasing, then I call you out and ask you to cease and desist.

> Similarly the sarcasm you are employing is far less obvious.

I have employed zero sarcasm in any of this correspondense. Perhaps your meter is faulty?

> I also disagree with your interpretation of when sarcasm works and I would suggest a different strategy.

Cool. I don't care.

> Language itself is compression and if one is to take a literal interpretation of everything then you will be unable to accurately communicate and are likely to frequently enrage and annoy others. Due to the compressive nature, you will always be required to "read between the lines" otherwise even this sentence would be uninterpretable.

And we must also account for non-perfect readings. The compressive nature of language means you are not reading every letter and every word all the time, you are fitting patterns and using previous experience to match them to correlations. This is an imperfect process. If your writing style cannot account for misreadings then I argue that you are doing it wrong.

Your pandering lecture has been noted and discarded.