[butter999]

You weren't speaking rhetorically, you were mischaracterizing what the author said to weaken their statement. That's the most charitable way to describe it without parting from the facts.

> If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.

They did leave it at that.

[dcow]

I was not. You can believe me or not.

And no, the author whined about how he doesn’t like the icky openbsd community very much arguably out of place. (There are multiple people who have mentioned they think it’s out of place, at least.) That’s not leaving it at that. Leaving it at that implies no further action.

[butter999]

I believe you when you say you made no error and that it was part of your rhetorical strategy. The problem is that your rhetorical strategy was to mischaracterize the author's statement in order to weaken it. That's dishonest. Saying "that was merely rhetorical" doesn't magically make it not dishonest. (This is on top of your earlier mischaracteiztion that they were "surprised" a project succeeded without a CoC, which I presumed was a mistake caused by a game of telephone in this discussion until you implied that wasn't the case. I can't take you at your word when you have mischaracterized the author multiple times then doubled down.)

If you had said, "oh, that was a mistake, I didn't mean to imply they had extrapolated from a single instance," then I would've believed you then, too.

They made a side note in an "about" page. You're making a mountain out of a pebble. The author made a minor note about their thought process, you have been complaining about it and have now crossed into personal attacks on them. "Whining" is not a stone you ought to be throwing.

[dcow]

You’ve got a lot to learn around here butter. Good luck!

[butter999]

Don't we all have a lot to teach and a lot to learn?

Same to you, have a good one.