No malice, but your memory is badly flawed. That is not what you said. What you said in #7 was this, verbatim:
"Judge [Wallace] said Trump did commit insurrection (which is ludicrous). Said he could be kept off the ballot in the general. It’s all corrupt garbage."
Judge Wallace ruled Trump could not be kept off the ballot in the primary or the general, her ruling was dispositive on that issue, because she ruled Trump did not obtain as an "officer" under 14A, Sec. 3.
Now you say you said, "I said the ruling meant they’d rule he couldn’t run in general". Who's "they"? The Colorado Supreme Court? You never said a single word about an appeal in your post.
If Judge Wallace said "he could be kept off the ballot", why did the Plaintiffs appeal? They would have gotten what they wanted in the lower court and no need for appeal.
What I replied was "Not in this Colorado case. In fact her decision is dispositive of both the primary and general election, where, after an actual trial, her ruling flatly says President Trump cannot be kept off the Colorado ballot because Trump is not an "officer" under 14A, Sec. 3. You may be thinking of the Minnesota case which specifically invited -- punted -- refiling once Trump is on the general election ballot."
Every last word of my reply was true then and true now. "Dispositive" is the outcome of a decision, in this instance a case which was appealed. Had you referenced an appeal in #7 you'd be correct, but you did not.
Yes. I read the ruling after I posted to you and this is still the primary.
What struck me was that the earlier ruling did not matter and they plan to keep him off, despite the initial ruling, which was my point initially but they did it via appeal.
We shall see how it ends ultimately.