Rest easy. I don't, and never did, have the slightest intention of dignifying your opinions in that way. I have much better things to do with my time than waste them on you. I will just go on pointing out the differences between things when you, or anyone else, conflates them.

Just as Azeem Rafiq is drawing attention to a serious endemic cultural flaw so am I, although obviously on a much, much smaller scale.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

As expected, more ad hominems which, when challenged, result in "appeals to ignorance".

Constant personal attacks, and libellous claims, as opposed to answering the comments made, are in direct contravention of rules 4, 7 and 8 of the site.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (17 Nov 2021 10.22am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That made me smile! For someone who likes to portray himself as a deep thinker, you do seem to struggle with some simple concepts.

Whilst the use of "sub-species" seems, on reflection, inaccurate, as those I described are still all Homo sapiens and haven't, yet anyway, branched off completely, they are nevertheless a subsection of society, divided from the mainstream by their ideas.

What I did then, and continue to do from time to time, is comment on a style of posts from this category of poster.

What I didn't do is point the finger at anyone personally. We might well know who they are, but it is open to anyone to deny it and even more open to them to prove it by moderating their posts so that there is no danger of guilt by association.

If however the cap fits, and you are proud to wear it, then any flack you attract is your own responsibility.

You, on the other hand, will frequently attack a poster personally and directly, rather than respond to their arguments. As you have done with me.

If you posted that you don't like the waffle on this site, fair enough. Directing it to anyone personally isn't. Flaming is specifically banned under Rule 7.

I don't actually take too much offence at being called a "waffler", having already explained my own reasoning. What I take offence at is persistent ignoring of the rules.

It seems to me you don't like rules. Your strident defence of "free speech" tends to support that assertion. Maybe you, like our great leader, don't think they apply to you.

I have noticed something of a trend here. The use of the term "waffle" whenever some people are faced by arguments they either can't, or can't be bothered to, respond to.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Don't kid yourself! You aren't the site policeman, much though you might think you are

You won't "say what you like of me, whether I like it or not"!

You will say what you like, unless and until someone, with more authority than either of us, stops you.

You attempted to stop me responding years ago and got a raspberry in return. I will answer who-ever I wish, but always within the rules. You have both the same choice, and the same obligation.

Being honest is always worthwhile, but it doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, make you right. I believe you are honest about your political outlook, but incorrect in almost all your assumptions and reasoning. Honestly holding poor opinions doesn't make them anything other than poor opinions. In other ways, you are not honest, because you break the rules in the hope and anticipation your transgressions will go either unnoticed or ignored.

It's not for either of us to determine what is a "reasonable line". The rules are explicit and, in my opinion, incapable of misinterpretation. The word "reasonable" does not appear in them. These aren't laws whereby a skilled Judge can look at context, determine merit and decide what is reasonable or not. These are black and white rules. Moderators need certainty. I don't though administer the rules. Nor do you.

I don't use the BBS much because I don't like its format. I will remain here for as long as I wish, always provided that I don't transgress the rules and get banned. Some people like to herd together with the like-minded. I prefer to challenge prejudice and bias.

I stopped being a "lad" over 60 years ago, and have a deal more experience of life and all it throws at you than you, whether in the kitchen or elsewhere. I just play by the rules, and expect others to as well. That's the honest way of behaving. Not seeing how much you can get away with! Maradona tried dishonesty, and looked what happened to his reputation.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Do you actually read posts, or only see what you want to see?

I haven't spent a moment talking about any court case. All I did was point out the truth about defamation and the difference between the way a Judge, and/or a jury, can apply a test of reasonableness, and the site rules, where no such test exists. It was YOU who introduced the reasonableness red herring.

I have not asked for any rules to be enforced. I wouldn't ask you anyway. In the unlikely event I did, I would do it the correct way. All I have done is point out to you that those rules exist, that there is no latitude available because of a reasonableness determination, and that in seeking to ignore them by assuming they won't be applied, you are acting dishonestly. Deliberately acting against the rules is dishonest.

That you regard explanations like this as "waffle" just supports my opinion that, in fact, you have no regard for any truth that doesn't match your prejudices.

You want to be the site policeman, in that you want to be the arbiter of what is acceptable. I don't. I already know what is, and do my best to both understand the rules, and abide by them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Correct result.