Ed Poor wrote:

You are miscontruing nearly everything I've said. It has the effect of putting words in my mouth.

ROTFL...this from a guy who just finished complaining that I "wished aloud for the ability to murder me by electrocution." I think that constitutes quite an extreme and unwarranted misconstrual of MY words.

You then use these words in strawman arguments to disparage my character.

This discussion has reached a point of diminishing returns. I don't think anything I've written has been a "straw man argument" or a misconstrual of your words, and you haven't provided any specific examples. If, however, you would like to point out specific cases where you think I've misconstrued your words, I'll take a look at them. (For the sake of sparing everyone else, perhaps we should do this off-list.)

The main point, though, is that I'm happy to see Ed state the following:

I will not issue unilateral temporary bans on egregious NPOV violators, and you would be just as wrong to suggest I would do such a thing as I would be to accuse you of plotting to murder me. (BTW, you're not plotting that, are you? ;-)

No, of course I'm not plotting to murder you, Ed. But if it's wrong to suggest that you would issue unilateral temporary bans, you should realize that your own words were what created that suggestion. This is what you wrote in your original post:

I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a temporary ban.

Those were your words, right? How did I "misconstrue" them? Is there some way to construe those words OTHER than as a declaration of intent to issue unilateral bans?

In any case, I'm glad to see that Ed has now clearly stated that he will NOT issue unilateral bans. I'm sure he also understands by now that he has no authority to issue "official warnings." Whether this is a retraction or a clarification doesn't matter. I thank him for making it clear that he will do the right thing.