> I don't understand what this means, but I suspect I interpret it that while afraid, you do not mind me explaining, also/at least for others that may not have

> I don't understand what this means, but I suspect I interpret it that while afraid, you do not mind me explaining, also/at least for others that may not have understood. Argument: "We adopt this stance, because it allows X and doing differently would cause Y and Z". The Spectator, a few months ago: "It is like in that Seinfeld episode where she expressed her concerns and he replied that all [slur] are [slur]. Yeah, take that, [slur], because this [vulgarity] has met your [relative]". Edit: and when I read that, I thought that the current decadence, each day more evident, is abusing boundaries. Edit: ...although, I suspect that this type of articles that The Spectator has so horribly decided are acceptable, could actually be tolerated, under the circumstance that they are read and acted by Mike Meyers in a costume.