Okay, wait. Lets back up here. Your condescending tone is really not constructive.
You were the one who condescended first. "Robot duplicates are not unique to Caprica." You really think I didn't know that? That I'd be so ignorant of science-fiction history as to think that a reference to something as generic as robot duplicates had to be specific to Caprica? I found that very insulting. You should've realized that I wouldn't be that foolish, and that my comparison to Caprica was about something more specific than just the generic concept of robot duplicates. (Especially since the duplicates in Caprica aren't even robots, but incorporeal AIs, although one was eventually downloaded into a robotic body.)
I also do not appreciate your implication that I am stupid and cannot follow a discussion.
I'm not assuming you're stupid, but the clear fact is that you didn't understand my original point. There's no shame in misunderstanding something, as long as you admit the misunderstanding and correct it.
I understood perfectly what you meant when you first explained it and how it was a newer concept.
You didn't have a clue what I was actually talking about, or you wouldn't have flung that "robot duplicates" crap at me. Hell, that doesn't apply either to Caprica or to Blade Runner, since the former aren't robots and the latter are neither robots nor duplicates.