So you admit, then, that you offered as my position something that you did not intend to accurately represent my position. Charges of dishonesty: upheld.
Saying "you said this" when I didn't, when you know I didn't, is certainly a form of misrepresentation.
So we actually can't talk about anything else, Mod, until we deal with the fact that you're not behaving honestly in this exchange.
But you did, and you dishonestly omit the part where I quoted you doing just that, so that it looks like I've made an accusation without evidence.
But I didn't. That's a fabrication on your part, a fabrication that you constructed by misrepresenting which posts I was describing
Again, Mod - there's nothing to talk about here except your dishonesty because your dishonesty makes it impossible to talk about anything else
Crashfrog has more or less decided to dedicate a whole post to his claims of my dishonesty. It seems as though he intends to discuss nothing else for the remainder of the discussion until I promise to stop it.
Likewise, I feel strongly motivated to defend against charges of dishonesty when made in a public forum. So I'm not going to stop the argument either.
I'm thinking this might warrant moderator attention. Either an enforced stop of the meta-debate and the charges of dishonesty or a move of the thread to Free For All would seem appropriate to me. Though I will abide by the decision of whoever looks into it. I do however, have one request: I assert a right of reply. As the accused, I think the fairest ruling would allow me the 'last word'. If, for example, crashfrog is allowed to put forward his best case for my dishonesty (or perhaps if he replies before moderator intervention occurs), which I am content with him so doing, I will present my rebuttal and we can call it a day.
I am aware it's the coffee house and everything, but I'm thinking there are limits and someone might judge this to have gone beyond them.