Well, yes, you add little to legitimate dialog, but
part of what you see is the contrast between the very liberal rules which govern this
mailing list and the level of tolerance on the talk page of the article about a subject
who is actively being harassed. If you have something to say about such harassment, you
are expected to be knowledgable about it. Cla68 adopted a pose of naive ignorance. You
like that pose too, and it is an effective debating technique, in fact, Socrates often
used in the dialogues published by Plato. However, when you get down to cases, and there
you are, in the midst of an active dispute, acting dumb, well...
None of that is "disrupting Wikipedia", though. Cla98 may have been
being annoying, but that's not the same as being disruptive.