BazzerPontefract re Reply #15 on: Today at 01:10:22 PM
First may I tackle, once again, your inappropriate behaviour. I appreciate that on a scale of 1 to 100,000, with Harvey Weinstein at 100,000 and you on one, many would not think the attempted controlling behaviour of calling someone by a name they have asked several times not to be called, is small fry. But I do wish you would stop it. My chosen name is Undercover Pensioner or UP. It is really very odd that you believe it is okay to go on trying to control what I am called.
Can we also look at what is also either your need to deliberately misread what I post or your need to believe you understand something you obviously don't just so you can get in another attack on me.
What I actually said was “I found it fascinating that, although it had a lot to say in the 80s when it was published it now seems to be even more relevant when it talks about using a fundamentalist religion (in this case based on fundamentalist Christianity in the USA) to control a state.”
So you add an extra word – not my word - and twist the meaning by adding something about Trump. I did not mention Trump! The reason I put “in this case based on a fundamentalist Christianity in the USA” in brackets was because I thought I should explain for the sake of anyone who had not read the book. Grammatically, if you removed the bracketed material the sentence will/should still make perfectly good sense. Just to help I will take the bracketed bit out for you. It reads “it now seems to be even more relevant when it talks about using a fundamentalist religion to control a state”. Perhaps a very low wattage light bulb moment might just happen.