Both of you can't be telling the truth here.
I responded elsewhere in more depth on this issue and azircon has confirmed upon review of the conversation that my recollection was the more accurate one in this instance. But it's very easy to read intentional deception into cases where people simply have slightly different recollections of events. Our mental context influences our perception of what information was conveyed and we can easily think we've shared information that hasn't been shared.
Are you saying that's why you downvoted it and why you are affirming your actions. Because he was hyperbolic? Your original reason that you gave for downvoting has changed then?
I downvoted it because I thought his post wasn't a good post. I don't have the time to go into depth on every reason I downvote something. I added a comment to explain one clear and simple reason, which I thought was more than generous in this case.
As I have pointed out there are flaws in your logic, and I believe that you are abusing your power. I'm not sure why you are doing those things, but my arguments have shown that you have.
This is probably going to be one of those "agree to disagree" issues. I don't think you've shown any flaws in my logic, nor do I believe I'm abusing my power in this instance.
That could be cool as long it is does not depend on a central power.
Yes, in fact, that's a fundamental aspect of it. There's some very preliminary discussions about the ideas behind it here:
https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/a-peer-to-peer-network-for-sharing-and-rating-information
https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/modeling-information-in-an-information-rating-system