Maybe if you could have explained How and Why we were talking about two different things and how and why it makes my arguments logically inconsistent as if my arguments somehow are predicated on your misunderstanding, confusion: ie demonstrate, instead of assert nonsense or plain lies, as if the conversation EVER changed from talking about monopolizing ideas, as if denying monopolizing of ideas in the begining of your comment without any logic, reason, or substance, while asserting it in the concluding thought without any logic, reason(pettiness?) or substance, is not talking about monopolizing on ideas.