I never said we can't. I'm not the one asking why you bother. I have been asked in past why I bother doing the same thing with fionwe1987. But I don't turn around and go, "yes, he's stupid or stubborn." I appreciate those qualities to an extent, because, as you said, it keeps things going. From my perspective, he is the one who ignores facts and quotes, and is selective.

Extreme is not inherently wrong, and I don't believe it is extreme, except in consistency. I was stipulating extremism for the sake of argument.
I don't agree that those things are redeeming. Usually such examples have self-serving aspects, or are in service to an unjust end. I wouldn't go so far as to say that she is so thoroughly capable of wrongdoing that anything else is impossible for her, rather I expect her to adhere to the same moral rules as anyone else. Therefore, examples of times when she refrained from active wrongdoing simply do not mitigate or cancel out other things she does that are wrong. For instance, overriding Siuan's intention to murder Nicola and Areina would not cancel out a hypothetical murder on Egwene's part (and as she does commit two such murders in tGS, that puts her further in the whole), as that command is basically the minimal expectation of decent behavior, like Elayne forbidding Birgitte from unlawfully arresting "Mellar". An act of mercy that mitigates violence, would be when someone forgoes a justifiable and personally desirable act of violence. Giving away something you do not lawfully possess is not an act of goodness, and therefore it cannot be a mitigation of theft.
So what? You're completely ignoring the point I've made, that one thing does not justify another. I don't care how "aggressively" anyone comes at me (for the most part, this stuff does not even register on me, as I don't like to project emotions onto correspondance), I care about the topic. When you say "this is wrong, because the book says XXX" that's something we can talk about. When you say "you're wrong because I imagine you to be XXXX sort of person," that's a bullshit argument. That's not even an argument, it is a fallacy. THAT is the substance of my objection, not that my feelings are hurt, but that it is an illegitimate argument or answer.
And by defending his assertion, you supported and abetted it! Tyr doubted I would make up fake accounts for the purpose of defending my own positions, and you implied that I did by pointing out that I have another account. Why is that fact at all relevant, unless you are trying to support darius' position?
No, I am saying you bring irrelevant personal things into a discussion about WoT.
Why? Are you walking back any claims? Conceding any positions? Am I complaining about wasting my time?
I can't accept your descriptions of quotes, and I don't accept other people's opinions about the meanings of quotes as definitive.
Why is a moderate opinion necessary or superior?
See? There you go again.
But I never said you were not worth talking about, or inferred personal qualities from a general style of discussion. If you want to guess what my specific complaints about Egwene say about my values and opinions, go right ahead. Hell, it's something I've wondered about for the fandom in general, and even speculated about back on wotmania, but couldn't think of any way to explore.
You didn't quote, though fionwe did later, about a peripheral issue. You offered your own recollections and perspectives of that incident.
What does being radical or a minority have do with right or wrong?