Whatever position I'm taking (away from this thread) is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

Incorrect. You seem to have a concept of what rationality is that's not very close to the reality; the reality doesn't involve ignoring data, but rather giving it appropriate weight relative to the situation at hand. The high probability that you're not actually interested in learning about or doing the things that we're doing here is definitely relevant to any thread you make an appearance in.

You may say that my prediction is trite or obvious, but that's about the limit for reasonable critical response.

I propose that commenting that you're using the words 'evidence' and 'legitimate' in nonrational ways is also a reasonable response.

There are no such things as independent trolls.

I doubt this. I suggest that an accurate definition of 'troll' would hinge on whether the suspected troll is trying to evoke emotions in eir target, and if so, which ones. This does make it hard to determine whether someone is actually a troll, or just socially clumsy, but we seem to have evidence of the former in your case: Your repeated comments about other posters' emotional and mental states suggest that you're thinking about those mental states much more than is normal, and an attempt to alter those states would be a likely reason for such interest.

My negative "karma", accrued on this thread, appears to me as a reflection of the emotional imbalance (and, therefore, irrationality) that appears to permeate this site.

If you're actually interested in learning why we believe that this isn't true, there are several relevant discussions that we could provide you with links to. I somehow doubt that you're actually interested in that, though.