Just FWIW:

Keith A of Hertford has been a clear, consistent, and moderate poster, unlike many of his detractors.

I can tell who he is quoting and why

He mostly sticks to a point or issue and agrees or contradicts it logically. He makes judgment calls on other posters, but in this thread anyway I haven't noticed any obscenities or harsh words.

I agree with his judgment on Putin, Putin's lies, Putin's control of Russian organs of government, 'justice', and media. For instance, I'm convinced, as are many Europeans, that Russian missiles under the control of pro-Russian forces, shot down the Malaysian airliner full of Dutch civilians.

I can go further into Putin's background and internal consistency of effort to make Russia stronger at virtually everyone else's expense, but this comment is more of an example than a full-on argument.

The disparagement of Keith A of Hertford by other thread posters needs to be based on more than mere declarations of his (alleged) perfidy. And this and other threads would be better off if posters would argue the thread subjects and not into repetitive biased comments.

I don't usually comment on these cross abuse posts but Keith is sometimes alone in there and he deserves to know that there is some unbiased judgment out there that doesn't always want to wade in the dispersive dismmissive detritus of repetitive ad hominum attacks.

Hoops, Keith!