>>>>>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.

Okay, now I understand. I noticed I had inserted the wrong link, so I edited it after less than a minute.

>>
>>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?

I think all my answers above cover your questions well enough. One additional note here: It was Mike's choice not to respond to my #1294887 reply. I can't help it that he doesn't want to discuss things somewhat further.

Cherry picking has nothing to do with it. That's what you apparently make of it. It now suddenly makes me wonder what your real intent here is.


>>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?

The point is that some might presume that he requested the ban after first having apologized himself and even after that having been 'insulted' by me. I wanted to have clear that such is not the case, for the record.