Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
The only evidence worth a damn is the original material posted by me and the media item posted by (if I recall ) Aexodous. Pages of conspiracies about sinister 'social justice activists' doesn't cut it, in my view.
Yet I was the user who posted the specific guidance and the full report into gender stereotyping published by the advertising regulator, among other relevant evidence. Your recollection is faulty and you should apologize.

You know where the thread is, what are you afraid of?
There is no specific reason for me to visit that thread: the example has already adequately exposed the irrationality of your logic. Not that it matters, since I could point to instances within this very conversation of you assuming the existence of latent motives when it suited you.

Opposing something so minor when you or your fellow man cannot possibly suffer detriment is the very epitome of snowflakery.
This isn't about personal injury to me. It's about opposing the idea (which as repeatedly explained extends well beyond the realms of advertising) that care-giving is somehow an inferior or unadventurous occupation and that depictions of women in these roles should be considered as potentially harmful. As shown, this notion wasn't invented by the British advertising regulator nor is its impact limited to that sector.

If it doesn't meet criteria, it's not fit for broadcast.It would be the same if the mother swore or astronaut got his cock out. It is so simplez it hurtz.
Refer again to the position made above: No one has claimed that it didn't meet the criteria, but that it was a ridiculous interpretation of it.

So you don't have an interest in UK advertising media. What makes Mongrel think that your posts might not pass the 'good faith' test?
It isn't your place to police the interests of other users on this board or to pass comments on their citizenship status. You are free to leave the conversation if you think I'm arguing in bad faith.

The odd comment fair enough, but pages of reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee on imaginary 'social justice activists' interfering with an ad you would never see is just plain obsessive.
Projection. For every comment I have made, you have responded (despite your litany of contradictory claims about not arguing or responding to me).