Dear Shadow Minister,

The beauty of a forum like this is that you can not edit prior posts.

You write; “Clearly you are too dim to grasp the concept of "clear but not legal"”.

Oh I get the concept fully, but that is not what you had written was it. Instead you had said;

“I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set”.

'if not' instead 'but not'.

Just on the off chance you really don't know the difference let me explain it to you.

If I was to say by way of example 'Shadow Minister is one of 'if not' the most slipperiest of posters on OLO' this would mean in my opinion that either is a distinct possibility.

If instead I was to say 'Shadow Minister is one of 'but not' the most slipperiest of posters on OLO' this would mean in my opinion that while you were indeed slippery you were not the most slipperiest, and that title is held by someone else.

I hope this assists in your understanding of the concept and grammar involved.

'Sorry mate, you and your ilk have lost any moral authority you once imagined you had and every bloody time you run this line I will hopefully be there to remind you of that fact.'

yeah I know Steelie you god haters very happy to hide the likes of Epstein, Weinstein and other Hollywood deviants. And lets not forget all the homosexual priests. Then again someone filled with such hatred is blinded to the obvious.

Dear runner,

You write;

"yeah I know Steelie you god haters very happy to hide the likes of Epstein, Weinstein and other Hollywood deviants"

What? Epstein's mates included Trump and Prince Andrew.

It was the Me Too movement which was kicked off by someone coming forward about Weinstein yet you slammed it by saying; "Hollywood preaching on morals is like paedophile priests preaching on childcare."

You have been utterly dismissive of women standing up to abuse. You are an enabler my friend without a single drop of moral credibility on this.

Slink off why don't you.

SR,

What is clear is that not only has a precedent been set, but you have accepted it and as usual are trying to deflect with a pathetic attempt at semantics. The meaning of " I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set" is clear for anyone other than a moron and the example that you gave is not even vaguely equivalent.

Dear Shadow Minister,

So we have gone from “I never claimed that a legal precedent was set” and “There is no precedent” to;

“a precedent been set”.

Mate I'm sorry but I think the even more discerning readers will be having a hard time keeping up.

SR,

I am sure that the only people reading my posts that are confused are the ones that are as dumb as a post.

To use small words that even you can grasp, I claimed that a non legal precedent was created that most newspapers seem to agree with.