I know what your name is. I call you Steve or Mr Shaw, both of which are your names, as I see fit, according to my humour, Which usually means how in / formal it seems to me is appropriate at the time, and in context with whatever. If you want to get the arsehole about that, more fool you.

I don't have to do better, Steve, Mr Shaw. You do. Well done for bolding 'suggests'. You are way more insistent than I am on this matter. I don't know who is responsible for this mess, and I really don't give a fuck who is. Innocents have been hurt because someone, somewhere, decided Sergei Skripal needed to be murdered. It's you that wants to quibble, far more than I. I could go on at length, but what's the point? I can affect things no more than you.

Scalextric, remember? But you really are an irritating bastard sometimes, Steve. The way you express yourself is just sandpaper sometimes. It's just easier to shoot the messenger. I've learnt to tone down my banter-but-others-see-abrasiveness; Mudcat taught me quite a bit about that. You? First post 13/5/07, 19,200+ posts & counting. Me? Less than 1150, first post 22/8/02. Lies, damned lies, statistics, eh? Mouthy much, Steve? Quantity over quality? If I call your opinions crap, I'm merely being blunt, as you often are. Don't like it, don't do it; don't recognise yourself, find a better mirror. The way one expresses oneself, eh? I know I do it; you seem to think you don't. It cuts all ways. If you ain't learnt that, then good luck with the etcetera! ;-)

I agree with you more often than not, where I've seen your remarks. I rarely comment, hence (perhaps) the difference in our stats. But don't try bullshitting me, sir. I don't ascribe words to you, but your words make you seem blind to the realities. It's all very well questioning, but if it wasn't Russia, who the fuck was it? Logical analysis only points one way & I've already told you what I consider to be 'circumstantial'.