In my view, if you and gman did not fall out, your initial response on this thread would have been different. You would have been your usual antagonistic self -- nitpicking and even attempting to distort my take on things.

If you were about being honest you would have first been mindful enough to pay respect by addressing the history of your antagonisms. Seeing that you chose to appear conciliatory without this history being addressed means to me that you are just trying to deceive once more.

I will not pull up links from the archives to prove my point about you not simply disagreeing in the colorism debates but you were being malicious and dismissive of it being a valid concern to be addressed. The reason I mentioned your passionate (almost romantic) story about how you met gman, was to make the point that, in my view, you attempted to use him to misrepresent the colorism debate.

It is okay for you to disagree with me and even despise me. We do not have to agree on anything or even be friends. As a matter of fact, I formed an unfavorable opinion of you back then that I still believe holds true today. I hope you can understand that although I distrust your motives for shifting tone here now, I still believe you are entitled to the hostile role that you have traditionally played on this forum in relation to almost everything I write.

If I was ever to get involved in that debate on the thread where you fell out with gman I would have to start with my assessment of how blatantly hypocritical and obscene you came over. It would be almost impossible for me to go further on that thread without first addressing that.

Anyhow, as you rightly acknowledged, I am simply giving my views on things.