>>>>Why the long explanation to Tracy? She is already in your camp. Try responding directly to your accuser.
>>>
>>>I did, in the other thread. Now let me see, what's its number...
>>>
>>>Ah, here it is: Re: Oprah says Thread #1294522 Message #1294887
>>
>>Now this is interesting. This response looks nothing like the email notification I received, which indicated your response was in the "Reinstatement" thread. Please make up your mind, and then answer my question.
>
>What email notification are you refering to?

When a reply to me is done, I am sent an email with that reply. A feature of PUTM. Since the content here does not match that in my email, I assume you edited your first reply.

>
>Mike directed the ban-request to Michel Fournier. When I saw that, I replied: Re: Request to ban a member Thread #1294856 Message #1294869
>
>Some minutes later I saw that Mike had also replied to the supposedly offending message. There I answered Re: Oprah says Thread #1294522 Message #1294887
>
>The reaction to Tracy is a reaction to her in the first place, to explain certain things.
>

And I am once again asking you why such a detailed reaction was posted in response to Tracy versus the thread originator. For someone so obsessed with debate I would expect you to take that on directly. I don't see Tracy as needing the additional explanation. Cherry picking, are you?

>For the record: Mike has written a ban-request and a reply in which he apologizes for calling me a twit both at the same time. He has not postponed the ban-request till after my reaction to the apology.

For the record - the above makes no sense to me whatsoever. What is your point?