I've just spent time reading it - as should be obvious from my post.
Please address the issues raised with you both on thread and in PM, by myself and other staff, about your methods of debate, your citing of evidence and so on...
I, and many other members, have done so
Do you seriously think we haven't? This goes back to the idea of making sure you know the subject before you start to be dogmatic about it.
the christian equivalent is sophistry. It's a function of organised religion. You might like to compare and contrast.
You are still not providing any evidence
@bob61 You know that saying about the duck?
What you /are/ doing is continuing to behave in a way which has already brought you a warning. Last night we discussed what this mean and what would happen if you continued to break the rules. I strongly suggest that you revisit those conversations, this time without the rudeness and ad hominem attacks.
If you want to post further on this topic, please take the time to absorb all of the discussions you've had with us about how you do it. Nobody is saying you can't discuss these things, do not go off on another censorship kick please. You have been given guidelines on how to post within the rules. Follow them.
You could, for example, answer the questions asked about what on earth "muslim dress" is. Or put forward other sources with the same conclusions which do not exhibit the behaviour you say is not "you". Perhaps a compare and contrast on sophistry in the religions of the book?
Frideswide