Frank, I’m delighted to see you practicing some new words.  As you can see from the Wikipedia description below, you were close in your usage, but your apology was off in a couple of ways.  First, playing devil’s advocate is a legitimate way to open up a debate to the light and examine the positions in more detail.

The second is the “completely stupid” remark, and I’ll be the first to defend you against that accusation.  ”Completely” is such a sweeping term and not applicable to you or what you said.   What is folly, though, are your efforts to run with the big dogs, but you seemingly can’t resist.  I just wanted to give you the satisfaction of knowing I noticed.

If you reply along the lines of “Whatever are you talking about?” I’ll have to take back my defense of you and go along with your post.  Who knows you better?

Regards.

“In common parlance, a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer (less commonly) to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a more conventional stance.”  From Wikipedia, Google “devil’s advocate”.

Arf