>>>I responded to Kevin and not you for a reason. Not going to argue this with you -- I said I was going to chill and I'm trying hard to to just that.
>
>You referred me to your evidence for Moore's racism and I responded to it.

You responded by refusing to accept the evidence, so we're dead in the water and I'm not going to argue with you about it.

>You can't take it as an insult that somebody disagrees with you and actually I think you'll find that many here will understand my responses perfectly. So rather than equating refusing to engage with being chill, why not respond reasonably yourself? Am I wrong? Why?

I don't take you disputing the facts as a personal insult. I just know it's a waste of time (mine and yours) to discuss it further.

>OK, I accept that the reference to HRC's donor Weinstein was a bit flip- but my intended point is that if you want to make Moore guilty by association, sauce for the goose etc.

If you were standing in Charlottesville holding a tiki torch with white supremacists to the left of you and neo-nazi's to the right of you....wouldn't you think to yourself...geee maybe I shouldn't be here..then leave? Or do you continue to stand their chanting with the racists? Or do you say 'some of them were good people'? If you're standing there with them holding the torch and chanting racist slurs then it's a tad more than guilty by association right?