But you didn't bother to give attribution and he got it from you. He was truthful and acting in good faith.

There was no lack of clarity and he was indeed acting in good faith, as indeed was I, and we have cleared it up.

And he did not address you at 1:22. How do you know he was talking to you? How would anyone else?

You really do need to look back carefully and absorb contexts. The post at 1.22 did not specifically mention me, but it didn't really need to, as all the three points within asterisks in that post are direct quotes from me. My issue was with the last two lines of that post, which the post implies came from me, which they did not.

You really are being a bit of an arse, aren't you, Jack?