I can barely believe what I'm reading. The topic of "Kim Holleman is Pychanaut" is virtually buzzing at Voat, you're fully involved in a dialog with her in real time, which I happen to stumble onto and thus make a rather plain spoken post asking you to cite the source of the quote for context - which should not have been unexpected - because my intuition tells me this person likely does not have malicious intent and because I have an internal constitution which always compels me to defend those who might need defending, and you go right off the deep end.

How is my post coming about the same time as yours not supposed to be a coincidence? If you're online reading and posting in a thread, and I'm online reading the same thread, and we've both contributed opinions to the topic at hand, what is the likelihood I might respond to your post around the same time? To any reasonable person, the likelihood is very strong. Why would I ask for a citation if I was remotely privy to the original source, which seems to be what you're implying? If you're also implying that I knew the post was deleted and was therefore asking the question under the presumption you would not be able to cite it since you thought I would know it was deleted, I am going to have to search for a whole new vocabulary to describe your faulty mental gymnastics.

In any event, thanks for posting the screenshot. I've barely had time to read and consider it, but will do so now, and will answer your outrageous charges once you're good enough to spell out exactly what they are. One other thing, not only will I answer your outrageous charges, I'm going to return the favor. I have discovered a way you have slowed down dialogue substantially at Voat, and there exists the possibility that this was intentional. I would have never remotely considered raising this accusation here had you not gone off the deep end by making me your new target.

I'll consider not spending the next while framing my case against you for presentation to Voat members if you do the right thing, which is to admit you let the heat of the moment get the better of you in trying to tie me to anyone else at Voat just because I exercised my right to express opinion that differs from yours.

My natural tendency is to argue for those who may not be able to fully defend themselves for one reason or another. Psychanaut appears to be getting it from all sides, so my response is to provide reasonable counterpoints for the sake of humane and compassionate dialogue, in order to discover the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Awaiting your reply.