I was just defining a couple of our more disgusting diversions for the wimmin to bleat about.

Personally I would feed a family of four in an end of the World scenario. That’s why I try and make myself so popular so I will be last to go and hopefully they will be too wea to take me on.

Lord T, I doubt if many women would want to achieve the feat of sniffing your armpits and scratching your vital bits, or have I misunderstood the meaning of your final sentence?

There you go. Despite us being described so it takes us 5 minutes tops to get ready from a naked frame to be the more handsome chap in the city. That includes sniffing our armpits and scratching our vital bits. Wimmin will never achieve that.

There is a reason I wear a hood on my outfit. Its because I don’t want to frighten the children. After all it is for the children.

No one can make you feel inferior without your permission. – Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 – 1962)

There will only be true equality when women can walk past a mirror, see a fat, balding, wrinkled body looking back and think ‘Hi, there gorgeous

I have a list of topic areas – politics, music, decor, cuisine etc and one of these is low taste. I was due for one of these – the last one was about underpants and Saturday’s a good evening for it.

Stepping back and wondering whether to run it, there were a number of factors:

1. Would it be likely to offend or would people see this man’s attempt for traffic as funny or even pathetic? I thought they would be more inclined to the latter.

2. Was the subject someone working for the good of the community, a nice person or not? Obviously, people in the public eye like Gordo get the most terrible things said about them so why should Flint escape this? Surely no one would suggest that she should escape along gender lines? That’s why I suggested racism too.

3. The final criterion was how I would feel if it were done to me? The answer to that is to look at my blogheader tagline about Jean-Luc Picard – it’s of no consequence to me if you talk about bags under the eyes or microsopic willy or loads of lard or what. We are what we are.

Personally, you’ll see from my blog that I don’t mention people’s physical peculiarities – I zero in on their behaviour. However, if someone wishes to do that on me, then go ahead – I know myself and know what is true and what is not.

If someone had done that about one of my readers, that would have been a different matter – it would have been deleted because I protect readers, rightly or wrongly.

This person, Flint, is not only in the public eye but she’s obnoxious in her behaviour and uses her beauty as a weapon, then turns on people for using her beauty as a weapon. Frankly, she is a hypocrite and as the purpose of this blog is to expose humbug, she’s a prime target, just as Gordo’s save-the-world is a prime target.

The longer I think about it, the more it seems she has no grounds to escape what others don’t – fiar;s fair in our new egalitarian society.

Now for this curious principle of “verbally attacking one woman is attacking all women”, presumably even the Pygmy women of deepest Africa and Greenland women too.

It’s an interesting principle I hadn’t thought of before. So, according to this theory, there’s some invisible thread binding all women together which does not bind men together. For example, should someone make reference to how David Blunkett or Dick Cheney look, I’m supposed to feel deeply offended for all men?

Well, I don’t and where this interesting construct falls down is that this whole post has nothing to do with gender at all. It could just as well have been offence taken at a dark-haired person or an ageist attack on an over 40 [I have no idea of her age]. It’s a red herring.

It was someone’s attack on a public figure who behaves badly and uses her very physicality as a weapon. If she’d used her golden voice instead, he’d have attacked that.

The bottom line is, “So what?”

There have been news magazine articles recently about the way people are so hugely oversensitized of late, that anything at all is racist and everyone whom they don’t like is a paedo. I noticed that a few female bloggers and commenters have joined me in thinking that ridiculous in the extreme.

So it is – to take offence, not only for what’s said about oneself but about what is said about anyone else in the world ushers in a whole new draconian direction. A thicker skin seems, to me, be to one of the prime weapons in the armoury in entering public life, which each and every political blogger does.

Non-political bloggers, I feel, have a greater case for asking that no one get personal or attack their actions. Someone who only posts feelgood, non-political posts has every right to not be subject to attack.

But … and this is a big but … one can’t have it both ways. If such a blogger then enters the political sphere by making a comment then, by definition, that person is going to be examined and answered. Some people in the sphere are less careful in their choice of words than we’d like.

Look, I make political statements. OK, so I’m going to have enemies, aren’t I? Goes with the territory. Should I play the offended card? No one would buy that.

That’s all I wanted to say on the matter but I am sorry if any reader was offended.