At the risk of prolonging this debate, I will only explain a couple of the points you've made.
I certainly never resorted to any abuse.
I suspect you and I have different opinions on what constitutes 'abuse'. You also said
I was not setting myself up as a world authority on all matters, I leave that to your good self.
You see, I think that is abusive. It clearly attempts to score points - cheap ones, at that - by insinuating that my postings towards you are arrogant (and dismissive, which you mention later. Oh, and you also accuse me of bullying.). I don't know if you're unaware of how you come over in postings, but to me (and others) that's abusive.
Moving on to accuracy. Of course everything doesn't have to be accurate. When have I ever said it has? But in a topic called 'Health' in a board called 'Science and Technology' then - yes; I think it ought to be accurate. BTW - when I said I only corrected you, that was pertinent only to this topic (and any other in which facts outweigh unsubstantiated opinion).
But let's examine the timeline. In this topic you made a statement, which was both inaccurate and potentially confusing to readers. I merely posted the facts. I did it in way I
thought was both friendly and sociable. Your response was - I venture to suggest - dismissive:
"Bacteria....viruses....bugs.... call them what you will, they are getting harder to kill".
So I tried, once again, to explain what the real issues were, as I thought you'd raised a very good point. But this is where it got nasty.
Where I thought I'd simply tried to make things clearer, you obviously thought I was actively sabotaging your postings. But instead of confronting
me about it, you made a snide aside after Suepp - quite accurately - mentioned 'bugs':
" Ian is likely to castigate you for using the wrong terminology, thus trivialising and ultimately burying the original and important point you might be making." That's quite pointed, as subsequent posters indicated by their use of smileys. Now, in any forum, if you choose to start trouble then you will get it back; that's how forums everywhere operate, and this one is actually more pleasant and civilised than most.
Your next post I would describe as petulant, with your flagrant use of hyperbole and yet
still managed to get the point of the original article completely wrong. I responded, yet still attempted to be relatively civil. But that clearly didn't satisfy you, because you then made even more comments, each of which was either untrue or simply absurd.
The sad thing is that a lot of this was unnecessary. The point you brought up was a good one, but I just wanted it to be accurate. I don't want to involve Ludo, and I ought not to have mentioned him, either, but it is a fact that we - all of us - are often unaware of how what we consider to be jovial asides can impact some others. I could show you where this has happened, but I'll leave it to you to search.
I am not suggesting you go elsewhere; far from it, as I consider the forum is better for having you on board. But you might bear in mind, when you accuse me of
"intellectual bullying' that you excel at." that there are those who feel similarly about your good self. Bullying, like beauty, is often in the mind of the beholder.
Just to correct one misapprehension, BTW, this forum was started by both Dave and me, and from the outset we have had joint ownership, with joint responsibility for what gets written on it.