I was directly responding to Freedom. I said was that animal rights people are not the cause of long list of things (tongue in cheek, partly) in response to Freedoms comment that animal rights people "are the problem in America". Once Freedom made that statement, that became a topic so I did not "wander". Not sure why you feel the need to attack me, and attack me wrongly.

Then you say you can only respond to what I say. I didn't say anything about arson. Did you erroneously think my list was exhaustive? You didn't respond to what I said, but rather what you think I was implying (again, incorrectly) even though you say you don't respond to implications. Ugh, a frustrating exchange in so many ways.