Thanks PDF, I was more than a little busy on Fri/Sat but in the odd breaks attempted to write a reply to Firefly’s post at Serial #172. When I managed to return I was surprised that the thread had been locked, though the reason as not difficult to fathom.
Anyway, here it is, warts and all.
There may be some truth in this, but on the other hand certain members here seem to take a small amount of pleasure in trying to wind up certain other members, especially other members whose command of the English language and nuances therein is not as good as native English speakers.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure if you mean to include me in that first group, either way no worries, though if I may I’d like to comment.
I don’t believe I’ve ever criticised anyone’s grasp of English unless that was their first language and they’ve insisted on attempting to communicate using that abomination, ‘text speak’ - or txtspk as I’m informed it is written.
On numerous occasions various posters from different countries and linguistic backgrounds have responded to the posts of others with invective and profanity.
It is very easy to respond in a like manner, and some folk do take that option.
Personally I see little point in descending to a playground level, not through any inability to do so as I believe I’m quite able in that are (and probably with a more comprehensive vocabulary of obscenity, 
) but in general I avoid it.
I neither speak to troops nor strangers in person in that way, (unless push comes to shove,*) and see no reason to begin.
The language I use tends in the main to be easily understood and should anyone be unfamiliar with particular words, they can be readily looked up on a net dictionary or translation engine.
Looking at the posts of the member in question, his command of the English language is far above average and manages mostly to read idiom well. At times, and often within a specific location on this site, an aberrant understanding is read into a certain posts. That his linguistic capability should suddenly experience a drop in quality remains a perplexing mystery but it can always be called as a defence should the moderation staff show ire. I would expect those for whom English is their first language would be held to higher account.
(* ‘Push & shove’ in a real situation, not the virtual world in which we post.)
I’m in full agreement that in this forum there is often a cyclic moment, though I’d venture to suggest that it is due in no little part to one opinion trying to keep to known facts, and another clawing desperately at fantasy straws.
My opinion of those who refuse to accept facts is no secret.
I feel it would be a great pity if the forum was locked or removed, as some of the more modern conflicts are potentially far more emotive than a conflict that was started and finished over a quarter of a century ago. There are of course exceptions, most often between participants of wars, but those on here who have experience of these things have been remarkably restrained.
In the broader picture, and particularly with reference to the two examples you have given, I’m ready to change my ideas on absolutely anything if given a convincing argument.
Indeed, my views on the problems endemic to the ME over the past sixty years were given their first major change when working there. First hand experience is an extremely good furnace in which to reforge ones opinion.
I think that just about all of us who served in the Province met people and saw things that changed our outlook on what we thought to be the case on our arrival each time. In some cases it strengthened a bias, in others it undermined it.
My view, for what it’s worth, is that despite the odd outburst this is a valid forum as a number of salient points on both sides have been made, and to close it down would only serve to perpetuate disinformation, myth and hatred by leaving allegations unchallenged and questions unanswered. Such concealment of fact will always hinder reconciliation.