That makes me calling Ian B a cunt (which he is) into the start of WWI!
No, that was a border skirmish.
Now, I will agree that it was inappropriate for Ian to call your wife an idiot, but don’t forget this is an abuse site, not least through your own contribution, and has been for a long time.
If you didn’t want to expose Mrs Nick to the possibility of abuse you shouldn’t have:
1, Exposed her on this site.
2, Helped create this as an abuse site.
You come across as believing that abuse is all fine and dandy, unless it is directed at you and yours. Well, you reap what you sow. At least Ian didn’t lace his words with obscenities and violent sexual imagery, calling someone an idiot is as mild as it gets. If you object to that then consider what else is written here, and how objectionable it can be.
Why did FT make his ugly comment the other day? Because he thought that was the way we speak on this site, that’s why. I was ashamed.
Now, when I posted my first comment on this I was possibly a tad intemperate, but by that time verbal daggers had already been both drawn and used. I merely entered into the pre-existing tone.
What caused WWI here was:
A, Telling Ian to “fuck off”
The reasons you told him to follow this course of action? Being rude to Mrs Nick, and his repetition, or focus, on certain core issues. Well, on the one hand you were defending your wife, good for you. Absolutely the right thing to do, but you were defending her from a situation you helped create, as I pointed out earlier.
As to Ian’s supposed repetition? Have you examined your own past writing lately? You return again and again to certain themes, phrases, metaphors and images. Ian is not alone in repetition.
Why have I never mentioned this before? Because I don’t care. I am aware of it, but fine, you can be a bit repetitive, but it’s your choice. Why is it an issue now? Because in criticising Ian you chose to make it so. In fact, when it comes to this, the metaphor is not pots and kettles, but rather his mote and your beam.
B, On my raising the issue of the abuse, obscenities and extreme sexual imagery we use you responded, in part, with “The pigeon-chested abatoir creeping basement tin-foil-hatter wanking his miniscule cock to destruction in a Primark sock in some fucking shit-hole and considering himself the sage of the age.”.
I am aware you were talking about someone else, but the words were nonetheless directed at me, and my concerns, demonstrating your contempt for what I had to say.
If you speak to your mother like that, fine, your choice. If she wants to put up with it, then again fine, her choice, but no one speaks to me in that manner, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason.
Now, frankly, Ian owes both Mrs Nick and you separate apologies, true, but you damn well owe him one as well. In my opinion, a grovelling one.
Now, I think we can agree that I have put my point across here, clearly if not always elegantly. I have demonstrated your hypocrisy and have otherwise (mildly violent metaphor alert) nailed your hide to the wall, not once having found it necessary to abuse you, use an obscenity, or elicit a single sexual image, extreme or otherwise.
The shame of it is, you are a far more inventive, nuanced and eloquent wordsmith than I can ever hope to be.
Oops, I said damn.