Ok, fair enough - maybe it's just my perception

And I do accept that your intentions are honourable even if I fel they tilt (inappropriate verb??!!) one way more than the other.

But to try and clarify my point a little, let me explain where I think the line should be drawn and what I think is acceptable/unacceptable.

First, the sad passing of scc's mum is a fact. It happened. And not only did it happen, pants originally offered his condolences. However, not only has he subsequently taken the piss with 'mummy' comments, he has also denied ever knowing about scc's mum. All pretty tawdry and all there to see in the last couple of days. Now THAT really flipped my goose. But it is only the latest in a long line of provocations. His rant about dead policewomen, the utter ridiculousness of 'fondue 1 paella 0' etc. I truly, truly believe he is a genuinely unpleasant person. On my life.

Second, your view is that scc uses 'mental health/alcohol' issues, that pants apparently admitted to, against him. Now I don't know if pants was ever an alcoholic or the extent of these mental health issues. If I have made references to drink it's been because his posts have appeared erratic. I have called him drunk... not 'a' drunk. It's a riff, nothing more. However, I do have a close friend who is a recovering alcoholic and the one thing I have seen, which I wasn't aware of, is the strong, almost unbreakable bond between him and others who have suffered in the same way. He says that only they can know what it is like to go through this. They become kin.

With this in mind therefore, I can't really understand why pants would insist on calling ME a drunk, Angie Watts, etc etc so readily, so easily. Would someone who had seen that dark place seriously throw that around at others? If he has had mental health issues, why does he call people mentalists? Nutters, Weirdos? etc.

Arganth, I genuinely try and play fair where fairness is merited and yes - it is absolutely not in doubt that, at times, scc, me and others have tried to draw a reaction out of him - just like he does to others. But I do draw the line across particular behaviours. Racism, threats of violence and insults that relate to family etc. Do scc's posts ever cross that line? No. Do pants's? Yes.

One final point. Just take a look at how people have reacted to pants across the past few days. I have seriously lost count of the people he has run-ins with, the trolls he starts - it's in to double figures. Scc? One person. One. Speaks volumes.

Posted By: The Judge, Dec 17, 14:38:11