All Steem was ninjamined.

I disagree, once it goes to the market and is
purchased, it is no longer ninjamined stake.
Said action also props up the token's value
by feeding the demand for the token.

private meetings between witnesses and proxy.token supporters was ongoing. I myself undertook some of it. I repeatedly heard of folks proposing exactly what happened,

I was unaware of those private meetings (probably because they were private). Were all of the proxy.token supporters (esp. those on the list) informed of said meetings?

I counseled proxy.token voters to prevent that from happening. Ignorance of the consequences could only have been deliberate."

1. In what way did you council them?
2. How many of the 300 who were excluded did you council?
3. How could they have not been ignorant of consequences, if
   they were not explicitly warned to vote for "the party" or else?
4. If they were warned in that manner isn't that voter intimidation?

No one on Steem owned any Hive tokens until the creators of Hive gave them away.

The elected witnesses of the community who cloned place (a.) over to place (b.)
were empowered based on the consensus of the vote. Even those who voted in
opposition to the organic witnesses were part of determining said consensus.
Had they known they were culling their stake on HIVE, they most likely would
not have contributed to the consensus at all out of self-interest. Even then, the
final result would be fake. This, because it is contrived from an implied threat.

You, nor I, earned one Hive token prior to that gift to us.

Why give people unequal gifts? Is it just a coincidence that
said gifts happened to magically mirror the balance from
the other blockchain?

I was given my Hive tokens without any demand, and I have no complaint. Had I not been gifted those tokens, I would still have no right to complain, because I didn't buy them from their creators.

You were given an airdrop of the equivalent of your Steem
balance on HIVE by the witnesses who you voted for. People,
who failed to vote for said witnesses, did not get the airdrop.
Some might look at that, and call it a payoff. A politician, on
the other hand, (real world) might very well call a payoff a gift.

Until that is agreed on by you, we cannot agree.

I agree that we cannot agree. After all, we are
interpreting the same happenings differently.

I understand your dismay that the extortion undertaken to gain financial benefits sought by proxy.token voters was used to exclude them from the airdrop, but I do not agree it was in anyway some violation of their rights.

You make the assumption that those 300 individuals voted for
proxy.token because they were engaged in extortion. That, to
me, seems like either a sweeping (or a hasty) generalization.

There is no right to a gift.

Nor is there a right to a payoff, if some
one fails to perform a required action.