Word of advice: you and "Steve Pavitt" share both this peculiar obsession, and an IP address. If you want to accuse others of "fraud" and "dishonesty", may I suggest you do not attempt to fabricate the impression of interest in your hysteria by using multiple pseudonyms?

So now at last we have a comment from you on the anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon. Except it isn’t a statement at all. Just like your blog, on which you carry no statement about Atzmon for the simple reason that anyone who asks your view of the SWP’s cheering of him gets deleted and banned (as I am). You of course stated mild reservations about Atzmon only BEFORE you realized that the SWP line was to cheer him, and now you’re stuck, you pillock. You were so dumb you even said it was a ‘mistake’ on the SWP’s web site to list Atzmon as a speaker! (You can find Atzmon’s speech to this bunch of wankers on his web site). Of course you cheer Atzmon, because that’s the party line and you’re too stupid and junior to have guessed it before it was issued. But turn it round. WHERE is the condemnation of Atzmon’s appearance at SWP events? There isn’t any of course, because you approve of this vile Jew-baiter’s appearance before the adoring SWP masses. If I have misrepresented you, then kindly state now what action you will take with the SWP to get its leadership (Martin Smith) sacked and expelled from the party. You won’t, of course, because you’re a microbe in the SWP universe and very thick to boot.

I’m sorry that your latest attempt to fabricate and cover up your stupidity and bigotry isn’t going to work either. If you go through the archives of your blog, you’ll find that you cite with applause the Net’s biggest neo-Nazi blogger Paul Dunne. He wrote to you to condemn Kamm’s linking of the SWP with fascism and you were so stupid you gushed over him. Even tho you were cheering someone who believes that Hitler’s invasion of Poland was a defensive action in line with international law. And when Kamm pointed this out you CARRIED ON swooning over your Nazi friend. You sick, stupid, fraudulent, racist fuckwit.

Let’s go over that Mitterrand disaster again shall we? You commented on Will Hutton’s ‘silliness’ in French politics, and ‘corrected’ his spelling of a recent French President. You did it 9 times. It was delicious, magnificent and a wonderful demonstration of your arrogant ignorance. No wonder you covered it up, and no wonder you carry on deleting things that make you look the fool that you are.

Do Mummy and Daddy know?

1. you called me a racist: demonstrate it. Find a quote. You won’t be able to. It’s an absurd claim.
2. I have never "cheered" an invitation offered to an "anti-Semitic bigot". (Find a quote. You won’t be able to.) Quite the opposite, if you’re referring to Gilad Atzmon, who cannot count me amongst his defenders. Another absurd claim on your part.
3. I don’t "have a history of citing apologists for Nazi Germany": don’t be so bloody ridiculous.
4. I’ve relied on state funding all my educational life, so thanks for all the taxes, but no thanks for the ignorant sub-common room sneering.

All things considered, you’ve not managed to do very well here.

If you want to engage with what I wrote about Mitterrand, please do so. Harping on a spelling mistake does not make you look any more impressive or clever, as others have pointed out.

Really, I’m amazed at the capacity the internet offers clearly slightly obsessive individuals to act like this: smearing obscure bloggers, for example, for god knows what purpose. If you want to carry on the discussion, please email me. I’m not going to bother clogging up someone else’s site replying to an obsessive troll.

Your defence of covering-up your stupidity over French politics is a marvel. Troll is such a useful word, isn’t it? In your use it covers everyone who reveals you to be a buffoon, and that’s a lot of people and a lot of comments. But that’s not my point, though. Nobody asked you to include a particular comment. People who expect honesty just assume that when you correct a gross error showing your ignorance of politics (you even ‘corrected’ the writer you condemned for ‘silliness’ unaware that he was right and you were exposing your stupidity!), you’ll make a note on your blog saying where you’ve changed the wording. That’s what honest writers do. You’re a racist ignoramus so you mount a cover-up.

So when are you going to give Mummy and Daddy that refund on yer school fees?

I freely admit the blog is riddled with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and badly-phrased sentences: writing without the benefit of a sub-editor has its disadvantages. I’m not desperately bothered by these slips, for the simple reason that I think it comes with the territory, and everybody does it. Spelling mistakes are a particular concern only in as much as Google is less likely to pick up on you if you’ve spelled something incorrectly. I correct them sometimes.

However, I’m happy to acknowledge anybody who does indicate spelling (or any other) errors, and have done in the past – especially when such indications are offered in good faith. But why on earth should I acknowledge someone who mistakes his pedantry for a critique? And why on earth should I give space on the blog to an evident troll?

If you were to devote a post on yer blogs to sneering at the stupidity of a distinguished
journalist and author because he doesn’t happen to hold your own massively-informed views about one of the most important politicians of the second half of the twentieth century, and managed to demonstrate that you yourselves didn’t know the name of that pol, then you wouldn’t half look stupid. If, in discovering from a friendly commenter how stupid you are, you deleted that comment and banned its author from any further comments while scuttling off to make it look as if you’d got it right all along, then that’s intellectual dishonesty. It’s also even stupider than the original stupidity. Meadway is thus doubly stupid, but I’m pleased to say that his stupidity and dishonesty aren’t in fact the worst things about him (see above).

All clear now? Jolly good.

Is it intellectually dishonest to use a spell-check before you post?

I guess that’s what you’re querying, because the racism point is too obvious to need comment. Jews aren’t a race, but anti-Semitism is a form of racism.