You were patronizing thats all. Let me lead you by the hand to this conclusion.
"Not realz" was used to pinpoint potential viewers of the content to what is going on in front of their eyes - using over emphatic language (omg! tze zedsz!) to indicate that this probably is not meant as significant, heartfelt criticism towards tze realzness of colors in the first place..? It was preceded by a discussion about which material to use for critical viewing, where "post processed" came up in 90% of the cases - followed by a discussion about the importance of esthetics in judging color performance nowadays.
Where you suddenly did find the need to rush in with "but they all use the same (standardized) color palette - let me tell you as much!", well *doh*. To know that may be the first prerequisite of "what you actually are doing" when even reading about calibration.
Your other significant input was that they all use 3D LUT calibrated monitors in post. When on the previous pages we had exchanges about for which error margins this actually would be reasonable - while you currently have an ongoing trend to bt1886 gamma - because "most post processing was still done on CRTs, which favor 2.4-2.5" (how about that as a fudge factor?). While edging at sensibilities that the color processing could be added to each and every TV in production for mere cents (instead of 700 dollar boxes), calibration then could be fully automated on the factory side - fully making the job of a calibrator redundant (while adding 30 minutes to the production process). Also TV reviewers then could be discussing "how black the black is they just saw" again and feel that they contribute value to buying decisions.
You mention rightly that you cant deduce the background of each person you are conversing with on these forums - and thats actually my entire point. Maybe start with don't talking to them like imbeciles who don't know the first thing about calibration. ("You see, theres something we call a standard, you, see?") As a rough guideline.