I called him deluded and ignorant (which he is)

Translation: He supports empirical evidence that I am uncomfortable with since it calls for changes I disagree with, and that irks me to no end! So, I call him a troll!

fter he called me a cynical liar (which I'm not).

I think the enormous accumulation of evidence following a few years of reading your constant one-track rhetoric, not to mention from the rest of your ideological ilk, strongly suggests you are. I think it's to be expected that you get pissed off and lash out with the ad hominems when such nerves are hit, so I forgive you, bro!

Truth aside, his is the far graver disrespect and libel.

It's disrespect you have worked hard to earn, and it's only libel if I am saying something that is demonstrably untrue. And I think the evidence strongly suggests it's far from untrue.

Delusion and ignorance is in principle testable based on simply reading what someone's written. The cynical liar accusation pertains to my internal mental state and should require some solid evidence. There is no evidence.

I think the psychological profile you have built over a few years of constantly spewing the same rhetoric and provoking the same engagements clearly provides some serious evidence. You may be deluded in some measure, as are all who ignore the evidence indicting a world order they nevertheless support. But you are not stupid, and that makes much of what you say a set of lies designed to bolster your side of the fence.

If I claimed certainty that one of our regular posters' actual desire was to torture girls and enjoy hearing them scream and offered some dubious evidence, would people just let it pass as part of lively discussion?

Saying you are superlatively focused on the issue of sex whilst being barely concerned and overly tolerant of the many types of demonstrable harm the world order and status quo you support has on kids as long as it's non-sexual in nature discredits your claim to be supporting the overall well-being of kids is hardly out of sorts with your displayed rhetoric. And it's hardly comparable to the bizarre, exaggerated example you used above. Nothing I accused you of is outrageous or in any way grossly out of sorts with your years of observed behavior and rhetoric.

Of course, no point complaining to the powers that be about one of the in-group.

Sorry, Ethan, but a supporter of the mainstream status quo and its anti-choice, anti-youth empowerment worldview is an extreme hypocrite of Brobdingnagian proportions for calling a pro-choicer on a predominantly pro-choice board (an extreme rarity in today's world!) a member of the in-crowd. Especially when your goal is to be a respected member of the biggest in-crowd in the world. And there is nothing remotely libelous about saying that.