> You've confused a critique of your rhetoric for a critique of yourself. If you call my comment hypocritical, I think you're calling me hypocritical. Apparent

> You've confused a critique of your rhetoric for a critique of yourself. If you call my comment hypocritical, I think you're calling me hypocritical. Apparently you don't think so. That's fine. It could be a cultural difference. Let's not litigate it. > There's no need to defend a turn of phrase so vigorously. If you'd just led off with, "No, I didn't mean it like that," as you've done here, then I'd have shut up. I don't think this is a charitable thing to say. If there was no need for me to defend it, there was no need for you to "attack" (criticize) my comment in the first place. If you don't agree, that's fine. Again, let's not litigate it. > I mean, come on, surely you recognize how "Do you have a citation?" falls into the camp that both of us apparently dislike. I don't agree. As I already explained, I think it's OK to ask for a citation, in a certain context. I don't think I was doing the thing you're complaining about and which annoys me. If you disagree, that's fine. Let's not litigate it. I would have liked for you to find a way to continue communicating without continuing to criticize, but it didn't happen. Oh well. Let's call this conversation finished. Take care. On the bitcoin stuff you are bringing up, that looks fine to me. I don't have anything more to say about that.