Let's review the thread, shall we: John posted about ID cards, and how he has no problem with them, but expects others to. Who Flung Dung responded that "power corrupts...", and says that ID cards lead to corruption, which is why he is against them. You then demanded that he demonstrate that he understand the ORIGIN of the statement, despite the fact that you now admit that you DONT (despite claiming that it definitely has a specific context, out of which it is inapplicable). Zappy pointed out that it is axiomatic, and that it has been observed repeatedly throughout the world. He then simply says that "And it was Lord Acton who made the statement famous." - which does NOT imply that Lord Acton was the one who originally said it, just that he made it famous. You replied, basically disagreeing with every single point Zappy made. I stepped in and pointed out that none of your counterarguments were valid (with a few extra, insignificant points added in). You then deflected by focusing on the insignificant points, and ignored the substantive points. You were caught out on the deflection in my response, where I pointed out that none of the significant points were responded to.
Now you are having a cry because I am not only capable of expressing myself, but because you were caught out on every single point. Not one of those arguments you made was valid.
To finish, I would like to point out that the saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is in plain english, and does not require a special manual or special education to understand. You admit that you do not understand it - does that mean you lack an understanding of basic english?