> You're assuming sarcasm rather than a "whoa, seriously?" response
There is a difference between "whoa, seriously?" and "whoa, seriously? if that's so, then why aren't you swimming in money?". The former is ok, the latter is generally given to people who tell you that they speak with Elvis or they can travel freely to the future and back.
You are correct, and this is one reason why it was difficult for me to see a better frame. Of course once I am aware that a better frame exists, I should give the benefit of the doubt by assuming that one until proven otherwise. (Even if I suspect it is not what was truly going on.)
I can only say I admire your determination here. In this specific case I have no or very little doubt that your suspicion is correct, especially in the light of later edits above. I think that I personally wouldn't be able to reframe the situation and change my way of thinking just because I was shown that it is possible. I suspect I wouldn't even want to, and it's not a noble thing to do, and I know this, but I think I still wouldn't be able to stop. I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed that you were able to overcome these emotions, really, honestly impressed.
Given the answer to "whoa, seriously?" is "yes" in your case, a good faith answer to a bad faith question is also the most effective smackdown; I find arranging things such to be useful where I have such suspicions :)
There is a difference between "whoa, seriously?" and "whoa, seriously? if that's so, then why aren't you swimming in money?". The former is ok, the latter is generally given to people who tell you that they speak with Elvis or they can travel freely to the future and back.