You can't take a particular example and generalize it to justify something that in reality (eg: in general) is not true.

I was just trying to help, man - and it was meant to be a specific (particular) example of a larger phenomenon. I'm not saying all mountains behave that way because the Cascades do, I'm saying that to my understanding all large-scale moutain-airflow interactions would occur similarly, and I had used the Cascades as one example demonstative of the larger phenomenon (basically the exact opposite of what you are saying I did).
I guess I don't really get what your point is supposed to be. I was just trying to be helpful and clarify and expand on your question, and I think I even qualified my statements with something to the effect of "As far as I understand ...", so what's up with the hostility?
Are you saying that you felt that your previous query was false before even submitting it, and are now upset with me for agreeing with it and attempting to explain more about it?? What would be the point of submitting an inquiry that you apparently now feel was false one post later? Could you provide a cite for your claim that this "in reality is not true"? Basically, did you somehow grievously misspell "Thanks for the information" in the previous post?
I was simply agreeing precisely with what
Chipacabra had said earlier in the thread (sorry I'd missed that btw
Chipacabra; I could've saved myself this whole nuisance.

). Although you apparently don't have a problem with his statements, nor do you have a problem with your own "taking a particular example and generalizing it to justify something", you still feel it necessary to not just question my suggestions about the phenomenon but to actually claim they are out and out false with no refuting evidence whatsoever?