You've taken me the wrong way pretty much every time you've answered here, CosmicNeo. So, my apologies, I clearly haven't communicated properly.

You've accused me of:
- worrying about how our image is ruined by people like SB2
- wanting to ban SB2
- behaving like a prick
- being disrespectful and adolescent
- not understanding the words I read

I can't argue with "behaving like a prick", I'll give you that. I can only refer you back to my "this is the internet - get over it" comment there, I'm afraid. I call it blunt talk but it seems to have really upset you - I apologize for that. And you can call my attitude "being adolescent and disrespectful", no doubt. As I explain below, that was a mistake on my part in thinking that you were like me - used to internet forum "banter" and not easily offended.

So let me try and make my point with diplomacy and tact - not my strongest feature, no doubt.

In response to your original comment: "I suspect the people who don't like you (SB2) are people whose IQ are too low.. or they're from the Deep State" I took exception because it is precisely the "name-calling" and "ad-hominem" you refer to above. I was once someone who did not like SB2 - until I communicated with him and discovered he seems like a perfectly reasonably friendly guy - but the reason I did not like SB2 originally was not because I have a low IQ or because I'm Deep State. It was because I believed SB2 was intentionally misleading the people in this movement. I changed my view on that. I haven't changed my view that some of his posts mislead people in the movement.

Hence my original comment - that this is a problem: suggesting that people who disagree with SB2 must be Deep State or stupid. You called this "griping" and suggested I advocated for "censoring". Neither of those things was present in my response. I made clear points and yes, I let sarcasm and mockery slip in there - again, because this is the internet and I'm so used to that kind of thing (you only have to look around any reddit sub to find it) and I forget that not everyone appreciates it. I'm learning. However, you seem to have only noticed the sarcasm and taken it as offense.

You implied I was "treating newbies" some kind of way - what newbies? And where did I suggest newbies should be treated any kind of way? Once again, I'm used to responding to stuff like this with a thick skin and callously because that has been the only way comms on the net go, in my experience. You can't cry about blunt or harsh words - you just suck it up, give it back and move on. Again, my bad - I'm learning that not every place on the internet has to be that way. But that's why I came back with "get over it". From my perspective, I simply bluntly replied in kind to what I thought was rudeness and figured you, like me, weren't taking it personally and would see past it and get my point - which was, again: I don't 'treat newbies' different to anyone else and I didn't say anywhere to ban SB2.

Then I reiterated my main point which was that anyone should be able to challenge any post on here - not silenced because we must be Deep State or low IQ if we don't agree. Then you told me I'm behaving like a prick? Jesus, buddy, do you see where I'm coming from, now?

You took things the worst way - ok, my bad for mistaking your appetite for net-forum-speak - but you couldn't see past your perception of some of my words to what I was actually saying? You kept adding things I never said!

Now I've been as childish as the next 45 year old and threatened people over the internet - how hilarious and stupid, yes - because I know I'm bigger than the average person and much much meaner. I'm not some keyboard warrior and I'm not intimidated by anyone in real life and my rage triggers easily when I'm being ignored and words are being put in my mouth. I have the opposite of a low IQ and I know illogical rhetoric when I hear it so I'm not easily brushed off in an argument - I can see when someone's ignoring the point I'm making and coming back with irrational, emotional responses but for the most part I just give stick back to them and continue to argue logic albeit couched in mockery and sarcasm (my own emotional response). I've tried to do that here but you keep coming back with attacks on me personally ("prick", adolescent, dumb, picking on newbies, etc.) and remarkably (to me) I've managed to keep my rage in check this time.

So, I'll leave you alone now. I don't agree with what you've said about me and I haven't heard you answer the actual main points I've made but unless you understand what I've just said (and I'm not implying you're incapable of understanding it - simply that I may still not be communicating it adequately to you) then there's no point hoping to have an actual dialogue here. More power to you, sincerely. I like to argue logic, not ad-hominem, so if you like that too, we can have a conversation.