I'd say the opportunities are specific and united by a single theme/reason. (Including our disagreement on your response to JDavidC, I count three instances of me being 'on your case.' Unless I'm missing any?)
But I don't know how to have this conversation with you. TheFightingPikachu and I can disagree passionately and take each other to task with no remorse, even teasing/half-mocking each other in the process. But all the while, and at the end, we are enjoying one another's contributions and remain fast friends. Though we disagree, we seem to lose none of our esteem in the other's eyes. You and I disagree far less, about far fewer things, but in these couple of cases where I've replied critically to something you posted, it ends up just feeling all judgmental-y, doesn't it? That's frustrating, because I have reasons for thinking you're wrong about this or that and I assume you have reasons of your own, which I want to understand (even if they don't end up convincing me).
But I think the difference is that TFP and I, both being philosophically inclined, automatically adopt a stance whereby we grant provisionally that each of our positions is up for consideration on its merits, and this tacit assumption means we always walk into our disagreements willingly, even if one of us drops out of the blue into a discussion the other was having with someone else. I think since the JDavidC situation, you and I do not automatically share this mutually-willing your-position-will-be-respectfully-considered stance (assuming we ever did before, we've interacted precious little; and I don't get the impression you naturally adopt this "philosopher's stance" outside of specific contexts like the debate forum), which means when I've called you out on a behavior or attitude I thought stood to be corrected or explained, it amounts to little more than unsolicited criticism. And that's why I apologize. =x
What do you think?