Where did I say I was discussing your three questions? They have nothing to do with the behaviour I am commenting on! There you go again with your VAIN ASSUMPTIONS! What I am referring to – if you had cared to ‘re-read’ what I wrote with both eyes open this time – was the way you dictatorially assert your interpretation/ hypotheses as the final arbiter and communicate with your correspondents as though theirs amount to jack shit. Listen mate, it’s your problem not mine if you think your shit don’t stink. I’m just using the internet (fortunately indeed) to speak out when I smell a rat too. The only thing I am interested in discussing with you Richard is your condescending verbal attacks on your correspondents and your inability to see it – i.e. smell your own shit. Anytime. Oh this goes way back Richard. I am not only referring to this particular thread, far from it. The verbal aggression I was ‘interpreting’ in that thread was your (as usual) dictatorial arbitration.

My interpretation, by the way you correspond (steamroll/ verbally attack), is that peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence. You are just another vain ego up on your pedestal imagining your own subjective interpretation (and that is all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise) is the final arbiter, and the interpretations of your correspondents amount to jack shit. Do you talk like this in live interactions as well? Most probably does ...

Richard, why do you say you are free of malice when you make the decision to occasionally say something to someone on this list that would obviously insult/ upset/ piss off? Just very recently you told No. 53 that he might not be able to understand grown-up words ... remember?

Out of all the correspondent’s who have expressed their doubts about your freedom from malice by ‘how’ you write and not ‘what’ you write, why you choose this particular excerpt to give evidence of a classic example of it making no difference ‘how’ Richard might couch his responses, beats me. The guy is simply expressing what he thinks and feels about you! Just where in that excerpt do you get that your correspondent was telling you that you are to be ‘guided’ by his feelings or that his feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what you are? A ploy to herald in – for the umpteenth time – another pompous (albeit irrelevant) pontification ... Something like Dickie the Dictator calling the kettle black eh? There’s also a matter of ‘how’ one says something and ‘what’ one says being inextricably linked so why the dissociation? Also noticed that each time it’s mentioned he gets more punchy like a hard-nosed street kid.