"A standard part of humour is the "running gag", in which the same them is reiterated ad nauseum."
Ad nauseam. 'To the point of nausea. "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam" signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively and everyone involved in the discussion is sick and tired of it.' Wikipedia.
I fully agree with this point, Antiseptic.
As to not commenting on a post which I found interesting; I feel no compulsion to comment on every post, or every article. The articles and posts I find most interesting are those I know little or nothing about, -which makes it difficult, if not unethical, to comment.
In this specific case (which I feel we have discussed, 'ad nauseum') I would not respond simply on principle, even if I had something to add, which I don't, as I am not particularly knowledgeable on that particular period, which is why I found it interesting.
Thankyou for an intelligent (and mannerly) reply.

Antiseptic:

You say others have criticized your style. Why do you feel the need to respond in kind? Just because they behave contrary to the aims of the forum does not mean you need to stoop to their level. Style is irrelevant.

“Oh dear, the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" gag in a new guise.”
Why the exasperated, impatient and patronizing response? It takes the same effort to respond in a respectful way or are you trying to convince yourself that you are so much cleverer than some of the other posters that you have to suffer?

“Personally, I like a bit of argy-bargy. If someone has a go at me, I reserve the right to do the same back.”
Why exactly do you like ‘argy-bargy’? What personal satisfaction do you get from it? Do you have to find that personal satisfaction here? I think there are many people who would like to express their opinions on this forum but are afraid to because they are sensitive to ‘argy-bargy’. That may be their problem but it could well mean the forum is a lot poorer for that. Many young people may feel like they can challenge the opinions of some posters including yourself but we never hear from them because of the climate of fear that people like you create. They may be your equal or better when it comes to debating but not when it comes to ‘argy-bargy’. Creating a climate of fear is one way of drowning out opinions that we do not feel confident in defending.

I think the ultimate purpose of these forums is to share and debate opinions in order to help solve social problems. If that is our real aim then we should do what we can to accommodate as many views as possible. If that means leaving our need for ‘argy-bargy’ at the door well it should be a small price to pay for the end result. If, however, our real need is for ‘argy-bargy’ we will not find such a sacrifice very palatable

Antiseptic: << It is effective, because the heckler is usually unable to think up more than one or two ripostes before he runs out of steam, just as happened with CJMorgan. >>

Er no, old chap. I've actually been having a lovely time away from the computer with my kids - before which, I thought I'd spent more than enought time on your crap.

Speaking of which:

<< ...a stream of silly, personally-directed one-liners from CJ Morgan, I had two options - either complain to GY, or deal with it appropriately. >>

In other words, you're enfuriated at my penchant for arguing against your increasingly misogynist claptrap. Not to mention more Freudian projection - certainly in terms of "silly, personally-directed one-liners", for examples of which any OLO reader can refer to your extensive history of abuse of not only me, but those (mostly female) intrepid souls who repel it admirably.

How's your love life?

SJF:"your commentary style has a knack of throwing the actual discussion off the rails. It stops being a discussion about Topic X or Y and, instead, becomes a discussion about you."

Not at my instigation. I'd like nothing better than a decent discussion, but it seems impossible to get people to respond to questions with answers. You are a classic example of someone who likes to blow into a discussion, drop a smelly conversational fart and then blow out again as soon as it is noticed, all the while proclaiming that you really would like to stay, but the smell is too bad.

Conversation implies dialogue, which implies communication and a willingness to engage. If I ask 10 questions in a post, not a one will be responded to, yet a single piece of florid language is enough to get pages of whinge. Who, then, is failing the communication test?

Grim, a lack of historical knowledge shouldn't keep you from engaging with the ideas. The idea I was trying to get across is that free access to information is the best way to ensure free ideas. The example I gave was only relevant because the article's author used the treatment of Jews in pre-war and wartime Germany to try to justify Israel's appalling record on free speech and human rights. The hypocrisy was just a bit too much to stand.

"The problem with limiting people to inoffensive speech is that powerful organised groups, such as the pro-Zionists, can swamp any attempt to discuss matters of broad interest with claims of offence taken."
Antiseptic, your point is a good one.
My point (belaboured 'ad nauseam') is that, rather than reinforcing an argument, bad manners detracts -and distracts- from an argument; as SJF and others noted.
Currently, the law (I believe) is clear. There is nothing anyone can say to me, no verbal abuse, which gives me the right to actually hit anyone.
In short, verbal abuse can never justify physical abuse.
And this brings us (or me, at least) back the theist/atheist argument.
It seems most people can take abuse directed at themselves; it's when the abuse is directed at their God, they get seriously cranky

phanto:"Style is irrelevant."

In that case, why are we having a discussion about MY style?

phnto:"young people may feel like they can challenge the opinions of some posters including yourself but we never hear from them because of the climate of fear that people like you create."

Fear? How so? As you will see if you go back over my posting history, you will see that I have rarely been anything other than correct and "mannerly" to people who are polite. On the rare occasion I have done otherwise (sry Romany, Foxy) I have apologised when it was pointed out.

If a young person is not expressing himself well, then I will more than likely ignore his comments, unless they are offensive to me. Even then, I am likely to do no more than say "Poppycock" or some such expletive directed at the views rather than being personally insulting. I reserve that for those who choose to be personally insulting first. If he finds my views offensive, he is also more than welcome to tell me why.

phanto:"Creating a climate of fear is one way of drowning out opinions that we do not feel confident in defending."

Precisely the point I made in my first post. Why should I be afraid to speak up boldly for fear of having my message drowned out by a wave of irrelevant whinging about one or two words? Why should I avoid being contentious simply because someone else is less able to contend?

I ask questions in every post I make, so I'm hardly trying to stiffle discussion, yet rarely do I get a response.

grim:"bad manners detracts -and distracts- from an argument; as SJF and others noted."

I will certainly concede that it distracts - this thread is a clear example. I don't agree that it detracts unless it is also witless and pointless, like the leg-humping reflex of a neutered dog.

grim:"when the abuse is directed at their God, they get seriously cranky"

Yep and in a nutshell that's why I get up the noses of the would-be radfems and their lapdogs.