The point was to explicate an issue with a fallacy.

I do find the anger about it mildly amusing, because it is coming entirely from people whose reaction to a hypothetical was to immediately dissect and reject it, then get annoyed when I continued to insist that the hypothetical held as-is.

That was the extent of my "trolling", to insist that the hypothetical held as-is, and to mark it as a loss when they continued to reject it - the extent of their losing was merely the degree to which they continued to insist that the real issue was that the subject in the hypothetical was doing what the hypothetical explicitly said they were not doing - making inaccurate predictions.