The first part of your answer deserves a thorough response...I will get to that shortly.

But to keep it especially separate, I'm responding to the second here (quickly), because you're taking offense at my taking offense at your at-best-very-sloppy wording.

You said, and I quote (emphasis mine):

I maintain, Rex, that all intellectual dishonesty is bad. There's no "particularly bad" - if it is intellectually dishonest, then it's bad.

How can one interpret there being no particularly bad and yet maintain that degrees of intellectual dishonesty matter?