The next censored input, 'Haha’s logic'

The resubmit of "Care to point those lies out?" was published, then the following @ 11May'10,5:12pm so far *not* [start of submit]:

This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom, Haha @ 11May'10,11:51am, as a public forum, we can leave the readership to judge any explications. Further, I presume nothing - other than the expectation of getting a "Fair go!"

Haha: "The only mistaken argument here is that you presume to be an arbiter ..."

Me: Noting "only," I could say 'thanks' - for accepting my logic.

Haha: "you do not have the capacity or authority ..."

Me: Hmmm, interesting. May we learn what qualifies *you* to make such judgments?

As to "plain English," I'd use Sanskrit if I thought it'd suit my purpose - but which bits did you not understand?

My arguments are logical statements of the form if X then Y, where X is a cause of Y; the veracity of such statements cannot simply be collectively dismissed as "fallacious" - especially in the light of Haha's earlier statement implying *acceptance* of my logic. More work required?

The initial X in my statements/logic chains are posited, unspecified but substantiable lies of which there are myriad. The 'best' (of course the worst) lie is Saddam's non-existent WMDs. The list is looong - and nefarious.

I can then reformulate: IF lies THEN deceit; IF deceit THEN unjust, IF unjust THEN all such wars are to be resisted with all energy available. It's the *duty* of every citizen to so resist. [end of submit]

Comment: I'll modify it & resubmit, as per yesterday.

Q: Is it a rogue gatekeeper, or AusBC policy? Perhaps we'll be able to tell, as the censorship picture develops.