Well, if you're saying that something is acceptable, the
understanding is that it would be acceptable to you.
But let's just ignore this obvious point for a minute. The
alternative is that you would be endorsing something as being
acceptable, even if it's not acceptable to you. That makes you an
even bigger idiot than I took you for - an impressive feat
indeed.
As it stands, what is acceptable to you is already beneath what
other members will accept, so if it's not acceptable to you, you're
severely deluded to believe that it would be acceptable to other
people.
Are you saying that you are not setting the standard? Well and
good, because with the nonsense that you come up with, you really
shouldn't be undertaking such risky activities.
So if you don't set the standard, you've got absolutely no business
writing things like:
After all, if you're not claiming to set the standard, who are
you to dictate the condiditons upon which things are deemed
acceptable?
Given how little you understand of "good" argument, despite all of
your overblown claims, it's a really bad joke if you expect people
to take you seriously.
If you've written your so-called book the way you've written in
this forum, don't quit your day job, buddy boy. 
