Verbal

You should write dialogue for Greg Fokker.

Still waiting for that list of your indiscretions Hypo. Must be a long one for you to have taken so many hours to produce it.

Actually that happened to me. I must be more careful.

So while those who supported the students' cause have already condemned the violence (only you chose not to see that to suit your bilious point of view), you have still failed to condemn the violence that was visited on Asian men and woman and their businesses and property at EVERY EDL 'rally' (ie gang meet-up).

Funny. The difference between you and Deppo is that he winds you up and you do it to yourself. You presented the stupidity of someone else as widespread. It is idiotic to suggest that it is now 'PC' to say 'coffee with milk'. Utter crap, and I'm sure there is a grain of sense in you that recognises it. And the second fantasy of yours, on which you didn't comment? I imagine from the tenor of your vitriolic little gems that you suffer from high blood pressure. Calm down, otherwise you'll explode and we'll have to get Mr Wolfe out.

Before you hyperventilate your brain into total annihilation, you were called an idiot, I think, for basically just making stuff up to wind yourself up! Well done, on that score. Two examples of self-generated fantasies: 'coffee with milk' can be said; 'black coffee' cannot. Hilarious. And 'no one condemned the violence of the student protest.' Of course they did, but you didn't see it because you view every message on here with a little bit of flea-bitten cardboard held up to your eyes to screen out the bits you don't want to read in case you disappear in a malodorous puff.

And one with an oddly homoerotic avatar.

I wouldn't have expected you to have grasped this simple point: tolerance tolerates anything BUT intolerance. Smashing the faces of young Asian women, attacking Asian businesses, trashing Asian houses, attacking anyone with a brown face in the safety of numbers, ad nauseum, is presumably your idea of freely expressed opinion. So simple to any sentient being - though not you, evidently.

Utterly, freakishly even by your standards, meaningless. The only thing I complain about is your consistent inability to follow a simple argument. It's depressing but nonetheless true that any debate on here involving you is nothing more than an attempt by you to rant and wail about something you expect - demand - everyone to either wave their collective pitchforks at, or declare their supposedly morally bankrupt colours by disagreeing with you. As I've said before, it's just the lazy, undeveloped mind of an immature bully. All of your arguments - to grant them a status they don't deserve - consist simply of an invitation to condemn someone or a group of people who fall outside your curious and 1950s-grey view of life. Who the hell would want to be in your gang?

If you look around that miserablist gutter, you'll find you're the only one there. The rest of us our having fun in ways of our own choosing. You sound like you're in desperate need of some happy pills.

I didn't have you down as a comedian, but that's pretty good.

Okay, so you're not trying to commit the awful offence of adopting a child. Please list all of your other transgressions so that we may pass judgement on them.

So you're exempt from the standards your holding EJ to? What is hypo short for?

I think the flowers thing is disgraceful. But I keep coming back to this, because EJ is a celebrity and you're anything but. If your life were scrutinised to that extent, would you be so high and mighty?

That's fine, so long as you recognise your view is worth jack**** - even 'fundamental' jack****. I love the 'knowing what he's done in the past' bit. Pontificating and taking the moral high ground is reserved for Saints (in the spiritual sense, not the football one) - rather than morally compromised posters on here.

Hypo, get a life of your own and stop trying to lives of others. Sloping along in the wake of the wafer-thin mind of Turkish makes you look even worse than usual. Such righteous indignation sits not so well with that fundamental Christian value expressed in 'he who casts the first stone...' Wouldn't you think? And are you so absolutely sure that your own life lives up to the morally and ethnically cleansed standards of those two almighty paragons of high virtue, dune and turkish?

I don't work for the Telegraph, so I can't tell you where they found their 'anonymous' source.

It's only of any concern to pitchfork enthusiasts and desperately immature bullies.

A pro-Nazi moderate patriot. Yes, that makes sense.

I can tell you, first-hand, that story is complete nonsense.

It's also completely untrue. Like a lot of these idiotic whinges, the wailings about 'political correctness' are mostly based on fantasies dreamed up by the tiny minds who feel squashed by not being able to hurl volleys of cathartic abuse at whomever they wish.

Why? Do you think dune and turkish would make a nice bonfire? And what is this "child" you speak of? Does its name begin with "h"?

Fascism is a combination of the denial of civil rights common in all liberal democracies (including right of assembly, universal suffrage, the principle of equality before the law, etc), state-sponsored repression (including the routine use of torture and other means of silencing civil opposition from the populace), militaristic rule (and the concomitant imprisonment, killing and torture of democratic political figures), and a political ideology suffused with the idea of political centrism and leftism as contagion - all yoked to a ferocious nationalism or 'volk'. All of this led to your evidently favoured outcome - the Holocaust.

Far from 'getting my knickers in a twist', I think it IS an issue when anti-semitic stuff gets posted on here, don't you? Or is it part of your argument against 'political correctness' that ANY abuse directed at other ethnic and religious groups should be given free reign? This is the problem with those who rail against 'political correctness'. Their arguments have a vicious circularity to them. It's a bit like the Freudian analyst-patient dialogue, where the analyst says: You're crazy. And the patient replies, No I'm not. Only for the analyst always to win the argument with: that you say that just PROVES that you are. Not one poster on here has actually defined political correctness; it is, basically, whatever they say it is - or whatever it is they viscerally hate. It seems to me a thin disguise for an overwhelming desire to be able to abuse someone - anyone - with complete impunity. And all kinds of fabrications are advanced as a justification - like that hopeless piece of idiotic fantasy that people have to say 'coffee with milk' rather than black coffee'. A complete fantasy, advanced by complete mediocrities. In the end, though, even the attempt to deny ground to the wailers and gnashers against 'political correctness' is seen itself as political correctness.

Not only is this a travesty as an account of the work of the Frankfurt School; it's a thinly veiled piece of rabid anti-semitism: the idea that those nasty Jews - even worse, SOVIET Jews - are the ones responsible for the decline of Western civilisation. That such crap should be retailed here as gospel is preposterous - and as good an indication as you can get of the dangers of trivial trawls through google. Much nearer the truth is that Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse were among a small group of Jewish intellectuals in Weimar Germany warning persistently about the dangers of Nazism. Horkheimer and Adorno's 'Dialectic of Enlightenment', published towards the end of the war (and from the exile in Princeton), was the summation of their early ideas. The work is actually a detailed philosophical analysis of the relationship between the Enlightenment and what they call 'instrumental reason' (it would take longer than a few paragraphs to explain). Marcuse's work - most of it published in the late 1950s - contained many of the ideas subsequently taken up by the counterculture movements of the 1960s. They were about as far from Soviet 'Marxism' as you could get - and were actually about upturning conventions that were the 'political correctness' of the day. Let's talk when you've read Dialectic of Enlightenment - much better than posting anti-semitic bilge on here, wouldn't you say? And when you've read it, perhaps you could try to substantiate a single claim about 'political correctness' in that ludicrous article by referencing quotes from the original texts.