For one, I think this is beneath you. Two, you have to expect stuff like this. When you use simplified models of painting or other activities to make your points, very few people are articulate enough to rebut you. But when you go after journos they have knives they've used on much tougher opponents. One of the ways they needle you is to quote you exactly and throw it into your face again and again. A related one is to deliberately misunderstand a point an rebut it with a more-memorable image (eg Laura Bush, who does not make more per-unit, but by that time you've lost the audience) and to repeat it (the dig about Lisp books, which makes even less sense).
Referee says you both have points, were both a bit sloppy in supporting evidence. 10-minute timeout.
I admit my tone was flippant, but there was a point underneath. The hallmark of a troll is to mischaracterize what you're saying. You never even reach the point of disputing the matter at hand; instead you argue about what you said.
I was fooled by trolls the first couple times I encountered them, because I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to waste their time that way. From experience I learned a test for recognizing them: when I kept having to say "No, what I said was..." Now when I find myself about to say that, I just stop participating.
My point with Mr. Weaver was simply that it was remarkable how quickly he'd independently reproduced the defining quality of trolls. It was funnier without all this explanation.
I think everyone got the allusion the first (funny?) time, before the explanation. It's still 'beneath you.' It's contributing to pulling the conversation into an uninteresting place, just like getting you talking about what you did and did not say.
Referee says you both have points, were both a bit sloppy in supporting evidence. 10-minute timeout.