Because he clearly hasn't noticed:
"IGNORANCE If someone comments on or asks a question about a matter ALREADY explained/answered for them, that warrants swift, unrelenting punishment; don't be that guy." -my signature
--------------------
1) Languorous_Maiar suggests Primm Pass as a route to use to cut through the Mojave, without any qualifiers or explanation.
2) I mention it's dangerous, ESPECIALLY for a Pacifist playthrough. I add, "the pass is guarded by a very perceptive (yet ironically blind) Deathclaw". I also mention the Scorpion pass near Goodsprings.
3) Languorous_Maiar ignores the "very perceptive" part, and misquotes me that because the Deathclaw is blind it's therefore easy to avoid.
___He misses the mention of the (relatively safe) Scorpion pass, and cites Cazadores as why my suggestion is not as safe I claim.
4) SEVERAL users post anecdotal and factual/descriptive information regarding Primm Pass and Blind Deathclaws, and that they're HARDER to avoid than normal ones.
5) Languorous_Maiar arrogantly posts "Challenge ACCEPTED!" and follows up with screenshots. The screenshots merely show him being near Primm Pass, nothing more.
6) I point out that MANY important details are missing, and that a video would be better. Among the requested details: "[his] character, present stats/level/skills, and absolute certainty that [he wasn't] running any mods or console commands."
___I also cite a HYPOTHETICAL situation to express how and why proof needs to be addressed objectively, and that without details, it can be misconstrued to "prove" what it essentially debunks.
7) Languorous_Maiar doesn't address the request for more details. He misquotes me again, citing my hypothetical as though I was referring to him, and insults me for being "an egomaniac who must be right".
8) Another user, Stanislao, asks for that video.
9) Languorous_Maiar posts a video which doesn't address ANY of the request details, and only acquiesces to not using a Stealth Boy. Without the context of the important information, again, his "proof" proves nothing.
--------------------
Languorous, you have REPEATEDLY made dodgy claims, failed to back them up, and when confronted you insult members, rather than admit to any fault. When you're addressed, whether it's directly proving you wrong, or simply pointing out that your support is lacking in sufficient detail, you FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE this lack of sufficient detail, and simply post irrelevant filler with no substance. For example: Where's the quick Pip-Boy flash to show your character's stats? Where's the fresh load to prove no commands were used? Where's the proof that you approached the spot FROM THE WEST, at low level (below 10, but 5 would be preferable) and accomplished the same results? These are simple notions of the scientific process; isolation of variables. Addressing (not ignoring) what could influence your results.
If you are criticized, that's a "point". The correct response is a "counterpoint", not a deviation such as a) an insult, or b) an irrelevant and unrelated point. You address the criticism with equal opposition that discredits it, OR you comply with it.
Criticisms is, by definition (and it's IN the word) part of critically "judging the merits and faults of something or someone in an intelligible (or articulate) way", it is neither personal, nor inflammatory/insulting.
Trying to win arguments with token phrases (Challenge ACCEPTED!) or insults (calling someone an egomaniac) is childish, and doesn't actually address nor does it discredit ANY of the criticisms of you or your claim.
You have been "that guy", and much harsher response was warranted, but I think I was relatively tame, despite that. Take this response, reflect on it, ACKNOWLEDGE IT, and then come back.