I was replying to a statement that C had isolation and I pointed out that it didn't. The response was a non-sequitur: "So then even C++ isn't OO", and I responded that the question is not whether C++ is OO but whether it's memory is managed. Not sure how any of this is hard to follow or why these arguments should trip you up.

The statement was specifically that C had encapsulation, within the context of a discussion about whether OOP should be defined as "encapsulation, abstraction, polymorphism, and inheritance."

You interpreted that as meaning memory isolation for some reason (even though plenty of clearly-OOP languages do not implement that), and when someone asked you how that definition of encapsulation squared with the fact that C++ is generally considered object-oriented, you said you didn't want to have that conversation.

It's not hard to follow and it didn't trip anyone up; you just changed the subject out of nowhere and for no discernible reason by injecting a contextually-inappropriate definition of "encapsulation."