Unless you've got your fat head shoved up your fat arse again, Shaw, no you don't. You got exactly the sort of response you were quite deliberately fishing for (and why would I disappoint you? Dear.). And don't pretend otherwise or play innocent. It's transparently obvious.

You like sticking labels on people. You've done it a couple of times to me. Here's one or two for you. Dear. Didactic, dogmatic, pedantic. Superior, supercilious, sneering, smug. Aggressive & rude, arrogant. Pompous, belittling, condescending, dismissive. Most of the time, you are none of those. Too frequently i.e. sometimes, you are one or several. Let's just go back through your 'contributions' (I use the word loosely) to this thread, shall we? Dear. There's 6 now; 5 of them are directly aimed at me, not comments on the topic. No complex there, not even a simple. Just simple facts.

First, 15/6/18, 6:11PM
You are turning into a complete arse, Raedwulf old chap. Calm down, dear.

Nothing to indicate you were being humorous. Here's a hint, Steve - if you're going to use "Calm down dear" humorously, then make it quite clear that that's your intent. Especially if you're pointing it at someone you've crossed words with before. Otherwise... You look patronising, condescending, sneering, dismissive, etc. Still, I decided to treat it as humorous; a bit barbed, perhaps, my response, but clearly indicated as humorously intended by the ;-) that yours lacked.

Of course, you then decided to have a complete sense of humour failure & invent a complex I don't possess (I'm a simple man, hence me using the same play on words twice). Third response by you to me - humorous intent nice & obvious, responded to in kind (with one exception amongst currently active posters, I may jump at a post, not at the poster; no, the exception is not you! ;-) ).

Fourth response - total bollocks. Not only total bollocks, but putting words in my mouth (I don't remember you kissing me. Blecccch! ;-) ). I have not at any point defended Chope, and I've made that perfectly clear. For the hard of comprehension (which is you, at the very least) I will say it one more time - there were plausible explanations for Chope's objection, Chope gave an entirely valid explanation of his objection. Given his reasoning, he was entirely right to object. Whether or not it's right that he has done so, or that he can do so... I've no opinion on. Got that, Shaw? Clear enough for you, dear? There's nothing indefensible in his position, except in the mind of a bigot, or a dogmatic, pedantic, sneering, patronising, "Of Course I Am Right, It's Me Saying It" complete arse. As you, all too often, are.

If you, or anyone else, thinks it's dead wrong (or right), fine, that's your opinion. But it's an opinion. Allow me to quote the honourable MM, Dave the Gnome, "I ask who appointed you as ruler of who can say what and how on Mudcat?" When you want to engage in a debate about the point in question instead of merely trying to sneer, condescend, patronise, and etcetera, Shaw, feel free. Until then MYOFB. Don't waste your time, my time, or anyone else's, with puerile pathetic comments like those you've directed at me so far. If it still hasn't penetrated your super-intelligent, or at least know-it-all, brain, if you talk shit at me, you'll likely get a mouthful back. Why shouldn't I? (Alright, yes, y'all, I know I shouldn't!)

And don't whine or play the innocent when someone talks back to you in the same fashion that you talk to them. The difference between us is that I know when I do it because I'm deliberately doing it (childish, mea culpa, etc), and I only do it in retaliation (childish, mea culpa, etc). You don't seem to be able to recognise when it's you doing it. Or you know it & you pretend you don't, which is ten times worse.