Whereas choosing which colour of suicidal consumer-capitalism is really the responsible way forward. This board is here for idealistic thinking. Coming on and decrying that is rather like coming on to a Catholic board and disliking the way people there tend to appreciate the pope and worship Jesus.

There's a lot of talk here that's politically radically different from what currently rules the world. We have no idea how likely it is to change anything. All the present orthodoxies were once outsider visions (as were a far greater number of ideas that never gained ground and we've never heard of).

Votes for women was dismissed by Cabinet ministers like Churchill in the most casual way, calling it 'silly', but within a generation it was fact. There were six people in the Nazi party when Hitler joined.

It's one of the strange facts of political life that we can never tell how likely fringe ideas are to come to the mainstream.

What is clear is that the consumer-capitalist model is built on a wildly unsustainable basis. When even the supplies of renewable resources start crashing, it's time to think in terms of an imminent crisis.

Anyone who wants to keep charging towards the abyss because, well, we haven't crashed yet have we, is not someone to endorse. So yes, we need radical thought.

And we need to sift through those ideas and sound them out with intelligent people. Ones who can explain why they think something is right or wrong. Those like yourself who merely write 'laughable' as their entire response to a point contribute nothing, except to make themselves look foolish.

I think it is unreasonable, yes. I don't see how those things really detract from the worth of what those commenters said.

But if, like you, I did find it unreasonable I would say why. For example, I would cite some present day honourable politicians and ask if the other person agrees with me, and if not why not.

What is surely unreasonable by any objective standard is to blow a raspberry and not explain why.

Try not to take it so much as a personal attack or a gladiator contest. Imagine that there are reasonable people reading what's posted, and what you write in response. There will always be cheast-beating tossers who won't listen, but we discuss things in public forums not to change those people's minds but to change the minds of the reasonable third party reading it.

We're here to unpick our ideas and to disabuse each other of the opinions we hold that don't stand up so we can all move forward. If there are flaws, explain them, if there are contradictions, flag them up.

Talking of which, i wonder how you square your despair at someone not being a democrat - thus implying you are one - with

The royals have their right to drain the public purse and their position of power, wealth and influence by virtue of their being vaguely descended from thieves and murderers. The hereditary peers - so stoutly defended by the Tories that you support - are the same. This is as undemocratic as it comes.

I also wonder how you square your belief in the integrity of David Cameron (who refuses to refund the public money that's given him a second home) with your belief that MPs should refund the profits made on second homes we've bought them.