I can understand why you would be upset with my one word answer. I don’t think you understood what I was going for, but how could you since I only gave one word :)
I have gotten to know you somewhat well since I initially met you, and I like you as a person. I think you have good morals and want to use your life to help other people. I respect that.
I was mainly responding to your comment about me not voting for you as a witness. As you stated in your comment, you were correct that my not voting for you is based on the priorities that you are focusing on. I disagree with them, but I also respect your right to focus on whatever priorities you want. I also already know that neither of us is going to convince the other of our point of view on this matter - so there is not much of a point of “arguing”. My one word response was basically an expression of that.
I’m not really sure what corruption you think I should be fighting, but in general “fighting corruption” is not really one of the things that I see as an important role of my witness duties - so if you see that as being dishonest - then this may be another area where we agree to disagree.
As a witness I feel that it is more important for me to focus on what parts of the protocol are allowing corruption to take place, and whether I should be advocating for or against any particular changes based on that. If there are any points to discuss in this area - I’m happy to share my views.