Well, no. The points are a) you're gonna rewind, have your thought again but b) this time your conclusion will be the correct one, i.e. mine.

I still don't see how "think again" gets someone there. Let's say we currently have a choice between
1. "think again" and
2. "you are about to find out that you're wrong".

You've postulated points a to b, which I think can be relevant to either statement. My contention is that each reading of the statement(s), 1 and 2, can be viewed as bringing the listener to the state where points a/b can occur. In either reading, the speaker may be taken to want the listener to think again and reach another conclusion.

(Side caveat: I assume here we're talking about the specific situation where we start our declarative with "If you think that...". As previously noted, "you've got another thing coming" is more widely applicable. But here I assume we are talking specifically about someone's thoughts.)

My contention is that reading 1 states that the speaker wants the listener to think again, and may indicate that they want them to reach a different conclusion. (I can picture other contexts where one exhorts another to "think again", not because they're concerned about the conclusion, but because some of the reasoning seems sloppy and needs to be tightened up.) What I think is missing is that it gives the listener no reason to do so. It's merely an exhortation, which can be accepted or rejected as the listener sees fit.

Reading 2, I posit, likewise is intended to lead to points a and b; but both treats it as an expectation rather than a plea, and points to the reason why the person is going to do so. "You are about to find out" indicates there will be additional evidence or other motivation about to be presented, that shall of course declare the listener to be wrong-headed by its sheer awesomeness. Reading 1 is compatible with this, but isn't tied to it.

td, kr: I read "you've got another thing/k coming" as being a declaration, not an exhortation; and as not standing alone, but as introducing a refutation. I read "think again" as standing on the other side of these criteria.

I will freely admit I paged back 90 or so posts and didn't actually see the post that explained what the thing was.

I'm hoping it was a retelling of "The Cat in the Hat".

I cannot believe how many Buffistas are so so wrong on the Internet! They have another think coming!!!

FLYING SQUIRREL SUPREMACIST!

You're right about cilantro though. EXCEPT IT'S CALLED CORIANDER! SPEAK ENGLISH!!

Do I get thrown out of B.org if I admit that I don't really care about the great thing/think battle?

Exciting news! I have just received in the mail a copy of Richard Scarry's "What Do People Do All Day?" Ryan will be thrilled! Of course, after entering the thing/k wars, I'm now embarrassed to answer that.

I am too tired to follow the think/thing battle, Suela.

Cilantro might taste better if I called it coriander.

I'm waiting for a celeb to name their daughter Coryander.

I'm waiting for a celeb to name their daughter Coryander.

No, that's for if they have twins. "I'd like you to meet Cory and 'er, guvnor."

Ah, my tribe.

I'm waiting for a celeb to name their daughter Coryander.

Why, when Koriand'r is available?

Not to insert too much seriousness into the argument, but I think the issue, at the heart is that the thinkers and the thingers understand the meaning of the phrase differently. Even as a threat-- "think again, missy" versus "if you do that, I am going to hit you"