Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was "perfectly exceptionless"?

Because you base your entire reply to it on the assumption that it is substantively refuted the moment you find one atypical exception?

No, that was not the assumption of my reply. The assumption of my reply was that the excuse I gave (carbon monoxide leak) would not justify committing an atrocity. Therefore, if the excuse is an exception, then PMing her would not be an atrocity.

You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, "You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you."

Second time: I do have solid proof for this in that she very much enjoys my contributions and even makes non-specific comments attempting to draw me out, so long as she doesn't know it's me. I have the smoking gun, however implausible you might think that to be. (Though I assure you I did not seek out such a gun, as no amount of effort would have reliably gotten Alicorn to do this; it's too improbable.)

Suppose she said, "You know, Jocaste*, I really like your comments. I wish that you would post more often, especially in reply to my comments."

That would not prove that her claims of psychological stress were hyperbole. The stress evidently arises from interacting with an entire picture of a person built from an entire comment history, not from any arbitrary subportion of that comment history.

* Here I'm using "Jocaste" as a place-holder.