this was you unable to accept you and
@Fawlty could simply agree to disagree on a definition and you labelling at is dishonest or deceptive aka, bad faith...
here you are again doing the same as
@Jack V Savage disagrees and will not accept your definitions,
Here you are saying someone who agrees with you is an "honest debater" suggesting again those with differing opinions cannot honestly disagree..
here you are with the start of your thinly veiled threats, this one to
@BarryDillon who merely said your definition was overly broad and bullshit. He never said anything about you personally and certainly nothing as provocative as all the times prior you were calling people liars and yet here you are over sensitive and wielding the little power you have as a weapon when you cannot get your way.
here you are with more of the same. Saying a definition is bullshit and asinine is a perfectly appropriate way to define something if in fact you think they are bullshit and assinine. That is not liek suggesting someone is acting in 'bad faith' as you do.
After I say i find you to being disingenuous in a post you immediately
go to this...
which is at best thin skinned noting you slinging around 'bad faith' and 'unwillingness to admit' and saying people who don't agree with are being 'dishonest'.
there is more and especially if you go to the other threads. But the point is made. What you call infractions and have no issue censuring people for are things you do yourself and first. In fact you go further and directly comment on the person and not just their opinion. Saying someone is acting in 'bad faith', saying they 'unwilling to admit' and your go to insults impugn character. Very different than simply saying a definition is overly broad and bullshit which you feel the need to flag while ignoring your own comments.
@Fawlty said it best when he stated
but of course you waved your arms and dismissed it while continuing to point to what you say were others infractions.