"NO mention of flight path angle."

What of it? You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s climbing vertically and when called on it you got ****y.

"I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
previous statement."

What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? And if you believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.

"That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?"

The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with altitude. However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. If by "stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of attack and then verified by test.

Find a copy of "Theory of Wing Sections" and read through it and you'll end up with a much, much better understanding of stall. If you don't have an engineering or physics background though it's going to be a tough slog.

"In real time, we'd probably enjoy a few pints and get along just fine,
but in here you have to stop treating people like they're stupid."

Unlikely in the extreme--I'd have to leave early while I was still sober enough to resist the urge to throttle you.