Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in threats or coercive conduct as those terms are recognized in our judicial lexicon. A threat is defined as a “communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another or on another’s property, especially] one that might diminish a person’s freedom to act voluntarily or with lawful consent[J” Black’s Law Dictionary 1519 (8th ed.2004). At no point did petitioner’s statements to Sprague rise to the level of threats. Further, we respectfully disagree that petitioner was “unduly coercive.” To coerce implies the use of force or threats and we are not satisfied that petitioner’s conduct rose to the level of coercion. The petitioner was not rude or abusive or arrogant or aggressive, nor did his conduct exceed the bounds of judicial propriety. See, e.g., In re O’Brien, 650 A.2d 134 (R.I.1994) . We are mindful that we are confronted with a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the commissions express prohibition of double counting in certain instances indicates its intent to permit double counting in other instances
B. holding prior instances of domestic assault admissible to show the nature of the parties relationship and explain what might otherwise appear to be incongruous behavior to a jury such as remaining with an abusive partner and delaying a report of abuse
C. holding that the two instances may include the charged conduct
D. holding that determination of public convenience and necessity by the public service commission was an issue of fact which warranted substantial judicial deference to the factfinding processes of the administrative agency
E. holding that multiple instances of arrogant and abusive conduct warranted a public censure
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.