Fwiw, after re-reading the posts of OP and TomTX:
To me it looks like honest discussion misunderstood, no need for offense.
OP wants to discuss his investing strategy, and feels TomTX is commenting on timeframes irrelevant to it, therefore on concerns (eg Tesla) that are irrelevant to it.
TomTX feels his concerns are quite relevant to OP's timeframe, that OP doesn't see it, and that seeing it would be helpful for OP. Right or wrong, the comment that ignoring the later timeframe is "dumb" is direct but honest commentary on OP's analysis, not a personal description of OP. It could have phrased more softly, but if OP wants comment (supposedly the purpose of the thread) he should accept it as it comes. From reading, it appears to me that TomTX has more experience in this area, so his comments should be valued. I have found them illuminating so far.
I may have missed a few posts (didn't see the ones about insulting), but as a reader, have found comments by both posters very informative in past. Anyway, I hope both stick around. Maybe it's mostly misunderstanding and calmness can descend.
***
On the merits, it seems that the long term future of oil could affect prices next year or even this year, which is in OP's timeframe, so discussing the effect of Tesla directly addresses whether to keep holding options in the next year or two. Maybe other investors are thinking about the same issue, so their thoughts affect the price? Would that make it relevant even if OP is sure to sell in 2 years?
More broadly, OP has the thesis that COVID details will affect oil prices in a way that might give predictable advantage, if I understand correctly. If experienced oil investors advance critiques that other factors will have bigger impact and that OP's investing theory is likely to be unreliable, that's a relevant comment, isn't it?
I like the fact that OP posts his actual positions, or significant examples thereof.