Apparently, Burns thinks he's merely getting a rise out of the forum, in which case it is to his benefit that he can keep doing so. This is clearly part of his intent to control the discussion, without actually having to participate in it.
I therefore note that his actions can clearly be categorized as "sealioning"
Chances are you've seen this comic by David Malki if you frequent Twitter at all these days.
It even created a new verb - "sealioning" - to describe the act of jumping into a discussion with demands for evidence and answers to questions.
Why is it an awful thing to do? Why do people react so negatively to a request for evidence? Surely a reasoned, rational person would acquiesce to such a request!
Well, no. And here's why.
The biggest reason why people hate sealioning is because responding to it is a complete waste of time.
It's an insidious trap. Responding to questions asked reasonably is, of course, a natural thing for people to do. I like to do it myself; educating others is generally pretty entertaining, especially if they are receptive to learning. Dismissing those questions can appear condescending or rude, especially if you actually are condescending or rude.
Of course, these questions are not asked because the person genuinely wants to know. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the "debate principle"; when you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure.
No, these questions are asked to make you waste your time. It works, too; I've responded to sealions before, answering all their questions and claims for evidence, only to be greeted by even more willful ignorance. It's a way to force you into responding to questions phrased neutrally but asked in bad faith.
When you ask a question in bad faith, you are essentially looking for a way to demean, degrade, or otherwise destroy your target. A good example of an obviously bad faith question is the perennial favorite "When did you stop beating your wife?" as it instantly casts doubt upon the person asked the question.
However, it's easy to ask a question in bad faith using reasoned, good faith practices. Neutral phrasing does not always guarantee a question is asked in good faith. This is extremely obvious in documented sealioning; the target responds, only for the questioner to immediately grill them for more information, misinterpret the answer, or dismiss it entirely.
The purpose of sealioning never to actually learn or become more informed. The purpose is to interrogate. Much like actual interrogators, sealioners bombard the target with question after question, digging and digging until the target either says something stupid or is so pissed off that they react in the extreme.
All of this, of course, relies on asking a lot of questions, often with little-to-no downtime between volleys. It further depends entirely on the sealioner never accepting any factual evidence, and ignoring any that comes along. It almost always accompanies a move from topic to topic, to avoid any valid responses from the sealioner, and allows them to retain complete control over the discussion.
When the target is continually asked questions - especially the same question under a different phrasing, (which is a very common sealioning tactic) it's rattling. They have to fight the natural instinct to respond in good faith to neutrally-phrased questions, as answering them will only bring more. It's a forced violation of the empathy that a compassionate person feels towards others, as it pushes them into noticing that their questioners are not particularly interested in the questions themselves.
Compound this with being sealioned by multiple people, as is common on Twitter and YouTube, and you've got a recipe for a very frustrating and fruitless timeline. If you respond, you are bombarded with even more questions by people who aren't asking to actually be convinced. If you do not respond, you are insulted as somebody who doesn't wish to participate in reasoned discourse, despite the clear and simple fact that such a discourse is not reasonable; it merely has the appearance of rationality.
It's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion or a brigade of sealions, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it. It is never about the answers, the factual responses that might be given, or the documented evidence that refutes the claim. It is about engaging you in repetitive response, so that the one who is doing the sealioning is never actually pinned down and forced to answer any questions of their own. The original responder usually gets angry first, and that is all the confirmation that the sealion needs to show his version is correct. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have run away angry. 
