Certainly there is no clear explanation there.
No need to repeat that you didn't find it was clear enough to cause you to reconsider the situation. I disagree as explained already.
He asked for clarification of one phrase, and he got it.
No need to repeat that you think that what you did was clarifying, nor is there a need to repeat my response to this, you can just go read it again if you like.
Message 48 was just replying in kind to the increased snark of the discussion
Which he increased in message 46.
And you're claiming he did that because his question was answered.
That doesn't exactly speak well of him.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with this, but it doesn't look right whatever interpretation I'm trying.
That he missed a good number of opportunities to correct his mistake is a clear fact.
No need to repeat that this is your opinion. I've already explained why I disagree with it.
So there he is claiming a right to concealed carry.
He claimed SCOTUS made a ruling regarding issuing CCLs in his State. How does this affect the argument? You weren't challenging him about a SCOTUS ruling regarding some State policy he raised, you challenged about fundamental rights. The fundamental rights of course that CS was talking about, was the right to carry weapons, which he supported, resulting in further confusion. Do you enjoy merry-go-rounds?
Sadly we are not having a reasonable discussion. Because you are not being reasonable.
Again, this assumption is more likely to cause the problem you are complaining of than it is to solve it. What am I doing that is not reasonable? Pointing out an error that you don't think is an error? It is not unreasonable of me to have made a mistake, so I don't see how that would count. What else?
And really I'm not going to answer the rest of it because I've spent too much time correcting your errors already.
No problem, you were just repeating yourself and ignoring what I had said in your repetition. I understand what you think happened, I was just trying to show you that your charge of calling CS a liar was not the case and in fact it was a breakdown in communication. I'm not clear what errors you have corrected of mine, but I agree there doesn't seem any utility in continuing into the oblivion of repetition.
You have a choice, look back on your discussion and try to falsify the hypothesis that you were near flawless...or you could look back and try to prove that you were near flawless. The good news is that you will be successful whichever option you choose!