" 
 ::That's an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is a noted logical fallacy.  Your accusation that my edit was in bad faith because I reverted your bad-faith reversion is patently flawed.  Think about it this way... if you hadn't reverted my edit out-of-place, would you have considered my first edit to be in bad faith?  Or is it because I reverted your reversion (because you didn't provide me with common courtesy) that you feel that my initial edit was in bad faith?  And to your point that you posit I'm unwilling to discuss changes resulting in an edit war, considering the evidence on this page alone, that's just silly.  The remainder of your arguments regarding my behavior seem equally disingenuous.  I'm confident that upon third-party review, it is your actions which predicated my justifiable behavior.  Finally, if I am debating with someone and it turns out that we agree or that I am convinced on several points, I needn't identify them point-by-point.  Instead, I state that the argument is logical and point out any edge cases that still seem unresolved by the underlying argument, which is precisely what I've done here.  I respect that this may be a finer point of intelligent debate, but why would you assume otherwise? —  "