Looking at it that way, does my behavior make sense?

I suggested that Eliezer's analysis of economic growth and FAI is more relevant to Eliezer (in terms of his expertise, influence and comparative advantage) than military robot politics is to all of us (on each of the same metrics). To resolve the ambiguity there, I do not take the position that talk of robot killers is completely worthless. Instead I take the position that Eliezer spending a day or so analysing economic growth impacts on his life's work is entirely sensible. So instead of criticising your behavior I am criticising your criticism of another behaviour that is somewhat similar.

Ok. I feel like you should be saying that to yourself - you're the one who said you thought the 3-D printer idea would result in everyone dying.

I perceive a difference between the social consequences of replying with a criticism of a "right to bear automated-killer-robot arms" proposal in a comment and the social consequences of spreading the word to people I know (on facebook, etc.) about some issue of choice.

I think the worst thing I said is that killer robots are a threat to democracy.

Yes. My use of 'doomsday' to describe that scenario is lax. Please imagine that I found a more precise term and expressed approximately the same point.

After considering the amount of time I spent on this and the clear statement of my intentions (or lack of intentions), do you agree that I was never trying to champion this cause and was simply doing my part, wedrifid?

Please note that the quote that mentions 'championing a cause' was explicitly about myself. It was not made as a criticism of your behavior. It was made as a direct, quote denoted reply to your call for readers (made in response to myself) to evangelise to people we know on 'facebook, twitter and other forums'. I was explaining why I do not choose to do as you request even though by my judgement I do, in fact, "get it".

Taking a stance and expressing concern about something that isn't a mainstream issue comes with a cost. Someone who is mainstream in all ways but one tends to be more influential when it comes to that one issue than someone who has eccentric beliefs in all areas.