You said that you had never had anything to do with me before, but we had an exchange in the thread about pain in relationships. You proceeded to ask me to "back up" references I made to earlier parts of your contributions to the debate, and when I took the trouble to do so, you hem-hawed yourself by saying that you preferred to keep posts short and preferred to read short ones etc. Instead of answering my questions that resulted from looking closely at your own, you continued to try to re-frame the terms used in the debate and make your usual exaggerations. So forgive me if I don't let you push my buttons anymore, even though I have backed up everything I said here - albeit with examples that ( boo hoo ) lengthened the post.
You brought up the example of the "true woodsman" fallacy, and applied it to Colorado, for example. In the "true woodsman" fallacy, a person continues to say "Well, you couldn't be a true woodsman because you do so and so", and is thus always changing the definition of what "true" actually signifies.
What I said to Blue Monday was that agreeing with people need not be as simple of a thing ( an exaggeration she gave as an example of how people that are "F's agree with one another ) as just saying "LOL" or "QFT" in a response. Maybe you can show me how that qualifies as a "true Woodsman" fallacy. It seems more likely that you'll have to backtrack yourself and change your ridiculously simple notions about how "F" 's behave.