1A. Where did I say it is not my responsibility to control what I say? I said "it is not my responsibility account for all the possibilities for how my statements are received". Seriously where do you get your arguments from?

1B. I think I explain it before. I gave that quote to explain why I think people in this country are still interested in the region and I quote myself from a previous comment: "I was simply pointing out that plenty of people in this country think about that region of the world and the events that have transpired and are still ongoing and one reason for the continued attention is explained by that saying." So it's clear that I've consistently said that that saying was not aimed at you but as an explanation for why I believe otherwise when you say people no longer talk about the Gulf War. No moral judgment, no condescension, it's not all about you.

1. I believe I pointed out that willful ignorance requires a will and I simply do not consider other possible perceptions because that would be hard to do for an internet of diverse people. I also stated that I do regret your taking offense. What you would want is an apology acknowledging that I was wrong to have said these things. But then again, this is what you said a few comments ago: "You were not asked to agree that it was sanctimonious, you were accused of ignoring how somebody could see it as sanctimonious."

OK cool. So what you sound like is: "Everyone needs to know ahead of time how I will take this in a way they hadn't considered and thus censor themselves so I won't be offended because when our opinions conflict, mine takes precedence". That's you.

1. Your perception and how you state your perception are two different things. I can only read what you write, not your mind. My argument has been that the way you stated your "perception" is as factual statements and I responded accordingly.

2. What is dishonest is the fact that you seem to think how you think and how you communicate is the same. Sorry, it isn't. I've given detailed analyses of why your sentence of "Then we just kind of left" is what I believe to be a factual statement. That's at least my perception of your comment which according to your logic, you have no business arguing about. I responded accordingly.

3. Cool, you've nailed me on a word choice after a 12hr day in the lab. Congratulations. You have proven you know me so well. Let me stop using them big words now. Because clearly no one would ever routinely use them in ordinary conversation, especially not someone accustomed to precise scientific writing. My point stands.

4. And yet, the way you offered it was at least in part perceived as a statement of fact. It's like you ordered meat on a bun and then was put out when you got a hotdog instead of a hamburger.

5. It takes two to argue does it not? You insist that I claim you made an argument that you did not. I presented proof. It's come up over at least 3-4 exchanges iirc so clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this point is important. Why am I so obsessed? I'm not. You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing if you just said it was "something I did inelegantly and have since corrected". Case closed.

6. I would say that "While you don't need an invitation, when people great you with hostility and accuse you of missing the point, it should be clear to you that your feedback is not wanted or appreciated." is a pretty good admission of who threw the metaphorical first punch. I think the histrionics and anger here is not mine.