Double Standard reloadedWho is interested in debating and who is notWho is interested in developing the article andwho is interested in freezin it to death including using threats and veiled censorship in the form of selective double standard applying of internal rulesAfter all it never too much to remind thatan editor besides not been unwilling or unable to counter argue over a year and a half he also have done baseless statements about editions done by me in a certain rude toneDuring all this time I have responded to him in the same mode but especifically to these assertionsnot having any left unanswered unlike himand only me is who was warned and blockedCurious  Summary of operationsTo the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful onesSee above The heart of this CaseAs well as the sections Spurious Quotations Once Again and sections Warning to Judge by yourselves II in my Talk PageTo note that 1 from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed even taking into account that the present version incurs spurious quote in the 1st paragraph too detailed and redundant information for an article that are supposed to be short on the 2nd paragraph and incomplete besides be longer vague and non neutral in the 3rd2 How not to think in double standard whenThe last disruptive revertion besides be longer than the version I propose was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above again See above points A to E in Once Again section  that were related only to the 2nd paragraph of the version I proposeand thatNo word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the 1st paragraph as well as against or about the 3rd paragraph that according to some editor Ctr F on word solid to see above on the discussion about grammar in the Once Again section was pretty solidAnd even so the revertion was doneSo I again ask you all1 Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances2 In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime monarchical military etc whatever beWorse which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above  even if this purposes are involuntary although the time that passed without actions having been taken as well as the resistance to remediation maintained only makes this possibility of involuntariness unlikely3 Which group of honest editors ladies and gentlemen who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument would vote against such remediation or would omit about it  

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Double Standard reloadedWho is interested in debating and who is notWho is interested in developing the article andwho is interested in freezin it to death including using threats and veiled censorship in the form of selective double standard applying of internal rulesAfter all it never too much to remind thatan editor besides not been unwilling or unable to counter argue over a year and a half he also have done baseless statements about editions done by me in a certain rude toneDuring all this time I have responded to him in the same mode but especifically to these assertionsnot having any left unanswered unlike himand only me is who was warned and blockedCurious  Summary of operationsTo the newcomers in this discussion and also to the selective forgetful onesSee above The heart of this CaseAs well as the sections Spurious Quotations Once Again and sections Warning to Judge by yourselves II in my Talk PageTo note that 1 from grammatical objections to the size of version that I propose no one objection was left standing and even so it continues to be reversed even taking into account that the present version incurs spurious quote in the 1st paragraph too detailed and redundant information for an article that are supposed to be short on the 2nd paragraph and incomplete besides be longer vague and non neutral in the 3rd2 How not to think in double standard whenThe last disruptive revertion besides be longer than the version I propose was based entirely on incorrect inferences and historical misconceptions as I shown above again See above points A to E in Once Again section  that were related only to the 2nd paragraph of the version I proposeand thatNo word was uttered against or about the spuriousness that was purged of the 1st paragraph as well as against or about the 3rd paragraph that according to some editor Ctr F on word solid to see above on the discussion about grammar in the Once Again section was pretty solidAnd even so the revertion was doneSo I again ask you all1 Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances2 In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime monarchical military etc whatever beWorse which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above  even if this purposes are involuntary although the time that passed without actions having been taken as well as the resistance to remediation maintained only makes this possibility of involuntariness unlikely3 Which group of honest editors ladies and gentlemen who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument would vote against such remediation or would omit about it  

