Pete, I didn't respond to your Facebook message because I have no desire to let anything that happens on this site intrude into any other venue. Your message DID remind me to come check this thread which is why I responded to your posts shortly afterward.
Calling that message an "olive branch" is not a fair characterization. Feel free to post your message here in full if you want to dispute my disputing of that characterization.
It's hard to read your writing in "good faith," when you do stuff like this:
(1) come out and without any examples or specifics, accuse me of destroying Ornery.
(2) sit silent for a few days, failing to respond to any material points by anyone.
(3) hardly an hour AFTER I send you an olive branch personal message letting you know that I'm banned from the forum and that you can now enjoy it without me, you pop back on here and make more personal attacks on me, knowing that I cannot respond.
(4) You completely fail to enter any other discussions during the 2 weeks I'm banned.
So does this list explain your behavior, considering that all of it happened after the behavior I was complaining about?
You didn't destroy Ornery, and it was dumb and hyperbolic to say that you are the reason it sucks now. But the way you ignore details in my posts, don't follow links, and don't seem to make an effort to understand me? That does suck. And it's been going on a long time, and hasn't improved.
Whether you're banned or not, I have a right to respond to you here, however prompt or tardy that response is.
I don't know what [factual errors] you're talking about, and you haven't given specifics in any of your personal attacks on me.
That's funny - because I did tell you what factual errors I'm talking about. Page 1.
You are engaging in classic abusive behavior. Blame me for abusing me, and then claim that I'm enjoying it.
Um, no. I'm not blaming you for my bad behavior, I'm blaming you for yours. You accused me of "making stuff up" and "playing stupid" before I got mad. Page 1.
And, at the same time, were demonstrating that you hadn't really paid attention to the content of my previous posts, by not acknowledging that the Orlando attack HAD been counted in the comparison you were criticizing for not including Orlando, and that stories that didn't include Orlando were published well before Orlando happened. That was stuff I pointed out, and also stuff that was supported in links I provided, by the time you were accusing me of dishonesty.
[scifi to Seriati]... That's pathetic. ... It's called context.
You're quoting Seriati, here. Do you see the pattern yet?
But it speaks poorly of your integrity when you not only blame me for your incivility, but accuse me of engineering your misbehavior and laughing demonically when you misbehave.
I wasn't blaming you for anything I said to Seriati. Where did you get that?
My comment was this:
If you're going to pat yourself on the back for getting me to respond with incivility, enjoy that.
Because you had just said:
....someone needs to take the higher ground here.
I wasn't attempting to present any justification for anything that happened after you made the post I was responding to. I hadn't even responded to Seriati at the point you made the post I was responding to. How could I claim you were patting yourself on the back for events that hadn't yet occurred when the patting occurred?
Your interpretation is bizarre and unjustified.
The argument in question was a straw man. You went into an Emperor's New Clothes frenzy, ridiculing me when I asked where Trump had suggested that refugees were going to massively increase the danger to all of us on the street. In response to your ridicule, I asked you rather politely for a source, and you responded rather rudely that you didn't have to give me a source.
None of this is correct! I claimed that Trump was fear mongering and trying to scare people and make them feel unsafe without his intervention. You then required evidence that Trump claimed the average Joe was going to face direct threat in the street. I told you that this was an arbitrary challenge, which is true (you were asking for something more specific than I had claimed existed).
If you have read my posts, you'll already understand that I later provided specific examples of the fear mongering I was talking about. If you had said "can you provide examples of fear mongering", I would not have called that an arbitrary challenge.
But there was no "frenzy" about that.
When I got mad is when you demonstrated that at the same time you were asking me to provide sources and back up my argument with specifics, you had not paid attention to specifics that I had already mentioned, and were accusing me of making things up.
Even in this most recent post where you are trying, again, to take me to task for incivility, you have quoted Seriati and chided me for his words. You have bizarrely misconstrued my remark about patting yourself on the back, and said that your construction speaks poorly of my integrity.
And you haven't shown that you understand your errors I pointed out on page 1, in my first post in this thread. Those errors appeared to form a large part of the basis for your outrage expressed in the opening post.
That sucks. And asking me to repeat the specifics over and over doesn't wash. I'm disgusted because of a long term pattern of misconstruing and misrepresenting my words, and making conclusory remarks if I don't dance to the tune you play when I object.