Still an inaccurate portrayal

Spuds, you are still trying to fit square pegs into round holes.  Your post here, which I corrected, said that

the WM removed all the posts, from DQ and Hv

If you meant to say that the WM had removed only a post from Hv and one from me, then why did you not say "both" instead of use the misleading term "all"?  That gives a clear impression that I had multiple posts singled out for deletion, when in fact I have not had a single post thus singled out but rather a post that was hidden as a result of another post being deleted.

I see that you are still trying to couch this as some kind of continued argument between two people when it was in fact an attack by one person which led to a response by me.  First of all, the so-called argument and complaint was thoroughly aired out here - and judging by the very large majority of posts and votes the bulk of CZ members agreed with me.  It is not me who won't put the issue to rest, but rather the other party who has continued to try to resurrect the argument and complaint long after it should have been put to bed.  Thus I would submit that it is not me who is trying to force my will, my version of the truth, and what is clearly a minority opinion on the rest of CZ.

Contrary to what you are saying, responding to an attack is NOT a TOS violation and nowhere has the WM said that it is.  What he said was that responding to an attack with another attack or responding in a way that is baiting could be a TOS violation.  That is not what I did.  I may have defended myself strongly, as the content of the offending post deserved, but nowhere did I attack or bait.  If I had done so and somehow violated TOS or the WM's guidelines, why do you suppose he did not remove any of my posts.

Now, one more time: the WM did not single out my post for deletion the same as he has not singled out any of my posts for deletion.  My single post which was hidden, the same as yours was hidden, as a result of the offending post being removed.  I have no problem with that so long as it is not falsely protrayed as my post being singled out for removal.  Besides, once the original post was removed there was no longer a need for my response and rebuttal to something that was no longer there.

Hindsight is always 20-20, but yes you should have hidden Hv's post as soon as you saw it.  I think that the lesson that should be drawn here is what can happen when a moderator leaves an attack message up, whether from friend or foe.  My response and the rest of the replies were all begat as a result of the original post.  Perhaps another lesson is what can happen when a forum moderator or owner tries to take a subject which has already been thoroughly debated in a proper debate forum (or forums) over to a forum they moderate or own and takes the opportunity to continue their complaints and dissension.  That is what happened when you posted your off topic message in the forum you moderate.  It gave yourself and others opportunities to continue your version of the debate and ultimately provided the springboard for the post attacking me.