There's a scroll facility on my computer, pdq - if you haven't got one on yours I'd advise you to get it - it'd really handy to have one.
....................

Once we have dealt with a criticism, by either disproving it, or accepting it, then talking about the faults of someone else is fair enough. But not until then.

So that was what I did, Wolfgang. My first paragraph dealing with the allegations against Galloway, my second paragraph talking about the alleged faults of other people.

All right, I wasn't in the business of disproving one set of allegations, or proving the other, and I'm not suggesting thaty my comments amounted to that - what I was doing was merely to point at what appears to me to be a discrepency in the way these two reports are being dealt with. Proof and disproof is a much more complicated matter than can be sorted out in a post on an internet site by someone who has only very limited access to the facts and the evidence - and that applies to all of us.

I think in that post of mine from which Wolfgang quotes I'd have been talking primarily about criticisms made of one Mudcatter by another, where we can in fact reasonably talk in terms of proof, since the evidence is readily available.

However even where proof as such isn't involved, I think it is reasonable to expect that we should deal with a criticism directly before moving on to some kind of counter-criticism; and I hope I normally do that