Wardog calling me a “buffoon”, a “fool”, a “coward” and even a “sad barsteward” means absolutely nothing. And that he should think of me as “insane” and a sufferer of “paranoid delusions” means very little.But honest, rational and intelligent debate is impossible with someone who sees me as a “colonialist”, “imperialist”, “quisling” and “traitor”.
My lack of support for what Wardog sees as Scotland’s Party makes me “spiteful”, “bigoted”, “anti-democratic”, “anti-Scottish”, “racist”, a “disgrace”, “unsavoury”, “dishonourable” and “odious” and in his eyes.
My criticism of SNP candidate Osama Saeed has resulted in unfounded accusations of “islamaphobia” and of being “against Islam”.
Wardog has also tried to brand me as “loyalist” and “extremist”. He has even attempted to link me with what he sees as “the uneasy violent atmosphere of uncompromising unionism”.
Enough is enough! I am no longer prepared to countenance such smear and insinuation.
I have always sought a civil, constructive tone for this blog. Wardog won’t be posting here again.
Yes, you've allowed him a fairly long lead for far too long.
I probably did, yes.
Advance apologies to the owners of the other blogs to which he'll probably now migrate.
Is that you, Wardog? Whoever you are, why do you feel the need to impersonate and misrepresent the real Drew Thomson?
Alas poor Muttley.
Those wishing to see one of the major causes of his demise can see it here:
http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.com/2009/07/god-save-queen-is-anti-scottish.html
I am going to leave this thread standing - at least for a while - as a monument to the [sarcasm on] wit, wisdom and sagacity [sarcasm off] of Muttley.
I wonder if banning wardog is as effective as allowing his comments? (whatever)
wardog is his own worse enemy most
of his reasoning's are more revealing of the delusional state of his mind than he possible realises.
Wardog is the Nationalists worst recruiter he reveals all that is worst in the Nationalist psyche.
Muttley has been back to my blog and removed all the comments he made today.
Curious behaviour.
Golly, golly gosh: could he actually be embarrassed?
I have to say I'm impressed by your resilience - wading in with the cyber-nats as you do. Personally I can't be doing with them - I think the average poster on the Scotsman, for example, could compete with CiF commentators for sheer unbridled insanity.
SU
This is a curious article you have decided to construct. Inviting comments in a free-for-all against someone you have argued with for quite a while, without a right of reply, seems a trifle "anti-democratic".
A more common-sense approach would have been to remove any abusive posts. This way, Wardog would have gone elsewhere or at least moderated his own comments.
I won't even mention the clip-art sound-bite.
Andrew BOD:
I had been rejecting his most abusive and off-topic posts for some time. To mix metaphors, what you saw was the tip of an avalanche! Enough. I want proper debate to re-establish itself here.
Just because I tend to set out my stall quite robustly at the top of each thread doesn't mean I'm not open to having my views deconstructed.
But Wardog's antics were dominating every thread. People like yourself, Chris from 'Leaves on the Line', James from 'Two Doctors', and various others — decent people with considered views and the ability to express them in a thoughtful and moderate way — were getting edged out.
Pleasing to see a comment from Shuggy; I greatly admire his blog. Hope to see more comments now from people who couldn't be bothered to deal with Wardog's excesses.
If Wardog wants to reply, he can do so on his own blog.