No, Bob,
you still don't get it.
Firstly, let me address your misunderstanding of the UK electoral systems. Note the plural - there are currently 6 in use in the UK, all notionally conducted in accordance with the Copenhagen Document of 1990, as indeed are most other national and local elections worldwide. Amazing, isn't it, that an experienced international election monitor knows and understands that, but a (IMHO, of course) self-opinionated, petty-minded MP wannabe doesn't.
Had UKIP's election processes been easy to understand, mistakes would not have been made (as they have been made in many other UKIP elections) and the system would not be open to misinterpretation, dirty tricks and potential fraud.
If Witney's 2005 GE results had seen the same proportion of votes discarded due to the voters misunderstanding the procedures, 18,000 voters would have been effectively disenfranchised.
But no matter. You have determined the rules of this particular battle and the terrain has been terraformed so as to be favourable to your viewpoint only. You really ought to read Clausewitz or Sun Tzu, Bob. It's never good to underestimate those who may later declare themselves to be your enemy (at least in your own mind).
Aardvark listened to the advice of a number of forum members (including me) and chose to stop responding to your unique view of the world. He is a highly ethical individual, albeit human, and is always prepared to see things from another's point of view.
Quite frankly, I (and I suspect others may feel the same) now feel that expecting you to communicate with the rest of the forum on the same intellectual, psychological or educational level as the rest of us is a complete and total waste of time.
Aardvark may have been "baiting" you, to use his own phrase, but to consider that "baiting" as a series of attacks suggests, IMHO, that you do not have the intellectual perspicacity, let alone the psychological stability, to act as anything other than a parish councillor of a Rotten Borough.
You know nothing about him, or Geoffrey Collier, or myself, or any of the others you choose to believe are "against" you, UKIP or some mythical set of eurosceptic beliefs, but you are willing to believe the contents of an email that might well contain libellous statements. No doubt you know nothing about the sender of the email either, but that doesn't seem to matter, does it?
If you were honourable (note my avoidance of the word "gentleman") rather than demonstrating your notoriously parochial mentality, IMHO you would have contacted Aardvark on receipt of this oft-quoted email, to determine the veracity and accuracy of its contents.
But no. You made up your mind about Aardvark and others before receiving the "evidence" that supports your hypothesis. Even a Foundation-level GSCE candidate knows better than to make projections on such a shaky basis.
Congratulations for demonstrating, IMHO, less maturity and ethical behaviour than a 16 year old.
You sir, stated that you had no idea as to who Aardvark's stalkers were, but you've just confirmed that you've received an email from an individual who has a particular perspective shared by those stalkers. Are you disingenuous or do you subscribe to being economic with veracity when it suits you?
You are not worthy of contempt, because you are not capable of learning from experience (how many other fora have you been banned from, Bob? Bear in mind I've done my research). You are not capable of listening to others, you are not capable of competing on level terms with others. You state your points of view as fact and then shy from responding when others demolish the foundations of your argument.
You are not worthy of pity, despite your obvious (again, IMHO) insecurities and lack of interactive capability.
You are, however, worthy of being ignored. How long will you survive without the oxygen of debate? Or will you stay smug in the certain, but IMHO, completely deluded knowledge that you have "bested" an opponent who is worth 100 of your ilk?