I was subjected to the variants of "YOU'LL GET OVER IT" many times when I was young -- it seems to be a favourite fallback of 30- or 40- year olds when they realize that they've been outreasoned by 10 year old.

Oddly enough, in spite of being 27 years old now, I still haven't "gotten over" the notions that a schoolroom is a perfectly good place for a reasoned debate; that English essays should be marked on the quality of the writing, not on the conclusions reached; or that constitutional protections, including due process rights, should extend to all places where government regulation is enforced.

Maybe I'm just not old enough yet.

This is indistinguishable from the 10 year old just not getting it (because they don't have the first-hand experience) and being so tiresome you don't want to continue.

There is a phenomenon where one forgets these things the moment he has kids (or becomes a teacher, maybe); the adults who were unreasonable to you may have been more reasonable when they were younger. Just a friendly warning. Better take significant precautions not to suffer the same fate (they, like most young people, probably thought they wouldn't suffer it).

"Nit-Picking" is indistinguishable from someone trying to clarify what you are saying!

Motive, not method.

These are great things to keep in mind for online communication. There are a lot of logical fallacy fanboys online. Their M.O. is to look for the tiniest gap in your method of debate and then latch on to it like a terrier. Their initial hope is that their wall of logical rules is impenetrable to you. Then, even though they are accusing their opponent of logical fallacies left and right, they end up on the Sleight of Mind path rather quickly! Maybe now this list can serve as a counter for that behavior (although they probably won't respect these as "real" fallacies).

AD HOMINEM!

No seriously. It is. If you present an argument online, and someone points out that you've committed a logical fallacy. They've undermined your argument and rendered your conclusion unproven. If your response is to attack them as "logical fallacy fanboys".. attacking their intentions and other non-salient points... that doesn't change the argument at hand and consequently you've committed an ad hominem!

I think I might be one of those logical fallacy fanboys.

I'm saying that all they do is point out logical fallacies, and that eventually they point out ones that are merely their own inference, and were not actually part of what you said. It becomes an endless meta-argument about how to argue.

I finally grasped the concept of "Intellectual Dishonesty"!

What isn't conversational terrorism?

If you want the opposite extreme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_communication