Trouble is, Bill, is that "debating" Akenaton and pete is actually no such thing. Yes there is invective here. At times. Could be guilty of said tactic meself at times, but, Bill, do note the "at times" qualification. I'm fully capable of taking people on and screwing them to the ground using perfectly civil tactics, as with Keith in that silly history thread. But you only do that with people who are utterly undeserving of respect. It is very important to the ethos of a place like this that bigotry of the Keith/Ake/pete variety is directly confronted so that, to outsiders, the place itself doesn't look bigoted. Akenaton and pete will never change their attitudes whatever you say. Trying to debate them is no more than inviting them to take the piss, big time. I've accused you before of indulging them and according these nasty people a degree of respectability that they do not deserve. By now, it should be clear enough to any fair-minded person that pete, Akenaton and Keith have long since relinquished, by their obstinacy, bigotry and stupidity, their right to be debated with. Au contraire, they must be challenged, called out and dismissed. We simply have to accept that some people are beyond rescue and beyond rational discourse and we need to treat them accordingly.