I had a very odd response to an exchange on The Standard yesterday. I had rocked the boat by suggesting that the CGT is something that deserved a decent debate and shouldn’t just be a party trying to “Own the Agenda”.

I then had a succession of accusations ranging from it being stupid,I was “talking around and never committing” and I claimed the sky was falling, apparently (not). I didn’t know discussion amongst the plebs was such an issue. But that’s all just normal attacks.

I was also  accused of being a “concern troll” – accusations of being a troll are standard when people haven’t got an argument. The link said that “A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym”.

I responded to MrSmith: “You seem to use a pseudonym. I don’t.”

I don’t care if people use a pseudonym, there can be good reasons for using one (and devious reasons). I was just pointing out an irony in the troll accusation.

Then I got an odd  moderator comment from lprent on the use of pseudonyms that I guess was another attempt at what he calls behaviour modification. It concluded bizarrely:

But the rule is that all handles are to be treated as pseudonyms unless I can confirm that they are not. You cannot try to use the ‘I have a real name’ argument.

What?  I’m forbidden to say I am who I am? Commenters on The Standard must all be anonymous unless lprent decides otherwise? I missed that clause in the conditions of use.

No wonder Labour is widely seen as out of touch with the real world. Bunker mentality.

Oh, and lprent was the one who said to me:

You do sound like a politician of the right – short term thinker and kind of stupid.