No, I think the issue is simple and it looks like you're obfuscating by daftness...again, it's cute at first...gets old after about the 214319184n;rwe post
I'm still here and I've cited my positions with easily sourced or sources themselves.
I was not calling the poster daft but he was using a well known debate tactic called obfuscation by obtuseness (daft, slowness) in asking over and over again for replied to post as if I haven't replied to them or change the subject of the request.
I was relating a debate tactic not labeling the poster daft...
If this is not the reason for the infraction warning point then I'd like to know