DtG - there you go, the favourite Mudcat pastime of challenging something that wasn't actually said (or rather, interpreting what was said in such a way as to suit your own purpose).

It's nothing to do with using flowery language, repugnant opinions are just that -repugnant. But put yourself in the position of someone undecided, with no axe to grind, reading a thread - if one party puts their arguments in a civilised manner, no insults, no shrill screams, just points made as they view them, and the other party relies on "thick cunt" or shrill screams of "bigot" or "homophobe", which of the protagonists is likely to have the most influence on that reader?

Insults are not debate. I completely agree that bigotry needs to be challenged but, if you tell a bigot he's a "thick cunt", do you really, honestly believe that he will be influenced by that to change his bigoted views? I'd suggest that solid logic and reason would have far more effect than insults.

I don't post a lot, but I read a great deal, and I'm conscious that I modify my own position on various subjects on the basis of the influence of well-reasoned and well-presented arguments of others. However, when the "thick cunt" stuff starts, I just switch off, and I'd like to bet that's the case with many others too.

Anyhoo, I don't propose to allow myself become the next "thick cunt", I've stated my case, now I'm out. Insult away - I won't be listening.