Let's not lose sight of the fact that you griped about being muted but didn't apologize, I unmuted you and talked at length about the need to apologize, we're still here conversing about the purpose of apologizing, and your move is to

- accuse me of hypocrisy

- denigrate my ability to converse

- remark about how "much vitriol" I've injected into a comment thread you started by accusing me of toxic tyranny.

I'm just pointing that out. I think we can both agree that I'm not reacting to it.

I'd like to highlight something else: you argue that this has been an ongoing problem for five years due to something "I probably don't even remember" but when I answer that I do remember, and that I will happily extend an olive branch on exactly one condition, you say I "win" by you leaving.

I think you're reacting to a power dynamic. "I didn't think anything I said in that thread was unreasonable, so I didn't think I had anything to apologise for" means that you think we're on equal footing. we're not. The adjudicator of our dispute is me if it's on my posts and you if it's on your posts. wasoxygen has chosen to prevent me from commenting on his posts, which is entirely within his rights - he often posts Libertarian screeds that get under my skin like no other and preventing me from opining certainly keeps his comment threads more cordial. I could certainly reach out to him to ask for permission to comment again - he and I have largely civil discussions outside the realm of economics. But I doubt it would end well.

If "it" is a dispute between you and me, and that dispute takes place on content I control, "to move past it" you have to meet my terms. I've explained what those terms are calmly and I've explained the thinking behind them. Simply put, you hurt my feelings cannot be answered with I don't think so.

I win if you can understand that. So do you.