How generous of you.
Your argument seemed to be that one needed to know the motive of the designer in creating the world, before one could say that the world was designed. In my parallel, the motive was “to have a grand tomb for the Pharaoh.” My point was that even if we did not know that motive (or any other motive) for building the Pyramids, we could infer that the Pyramids were designed. We don’t detect design by using motives; we detect it by the arrangement of parts. A guillotine might be used to slice meats, or to behead political enemies; we don’t need to know what the motive is to determine that the guillotine is a designed object.
I would have considered a reasonable response to be: “I grant you that in the case of the Pyramids and in most other cases we do not need to know anything about a designer’s motive in order to infer design; however, I think the case of the universe is different in important ways from the usual case, and here is what I think the key differences are…” That would have been tonally constructive, and also would have moved more directly to the conceptual issues, allowing you to skip discussing historical facts about Egyptians and their construction methods, which historical facts didn’t affect the “motive” question I was addressing.
I’ve given you this answer in order to clarify what I meant, since you asked for clarification (asked, I would say, condescendingly rather than in the spirit of genuine intellectual partnership), but I’m not interested in beating the Egyptian parallel to death, so you may respond if you like, but I don’t promise to discuss it further, if I don’t think your answer is likely to lead to any insights or conclusions that we haven’t already aired.