I can only offer advice.

And I have repeatedly, and at length, rejected that advice. I've also stated my reason for doing so, repeatedly, consistently, and at length.

I will do so again, in short, one last time.

I did not ask for your advice unilateral, capricious judgements. I do not want your advice unilateral, capricious judgements.

You, (and tirwhan; & Tye; & ysth; & herveus), have, unbidden, with neither mandate nor precedent, thrown your disparate, advice unilateral, capricious judgements at me.

The fact that I have had to reject that advice unilateral, capricious, judgement, over and over, means that you do not accept my right to reject it. And that, is (attempted) imposition! And I do not recognise your right to make such impositions.

Until such times as your collective advice unilateral, capricious, judgements become unified and codified, and ratified into some sort of consensus, to be applied fairly and universally, they are nothing more nor less than your collective attempts to impose your, (transient, dependent upon who, is saying what, to whom; and your moods), whimsical moral standards upon me. And anyone else you feel the prerogative to do likewise to.

And that is at best discriminatory censorship.

Until such time, I will treat others according to my personal ethics. And that, simply stated, is I will treat others in the same way that they treat me.

Which means for instance, that we have continued a long, detailed, at times frustrating (no doubt for both of us), conversation. You have remained calm, lucid and free of sarcasm or other forms of one-upmanship. I hope you'll agree, so have I. You showed me respect, and I have returned it.

And so it is with all those with whom I interact. Whilst the discussion remains on-topic and devoid of attempted one-upmanship, so do I. But throw stones at me, and as sure as eggs are eggs, I'll throw them right back.

We are beginning to more than just repeat ourselves now, so the last words are yours. If this were a debate, it would be time to vote.