Nevertheless, the point is factually true an IMCr holder may flying IFR departures, enroute, arrivals and approaches having had their entire instruction conducted by someone who wasn't an ICAO IR holder themselves.
I agree, but it is again not what Jim said. He could have said exactly that, but he preferred to say "whose own experience is quite limited". What does that mean and who has assessed whether their expereince is limited. My IMCr instructor all those years ago I can guarantee you had more experience of IF than Mr Thorpe and most pilots with an IR even though he did not hold an IR.
I imagine the irony is lost on you.
The irony of mentioning in a "technical write up" that some nuter made such insulting remarks that were totally irrelevant to the matter in hand. Sadly I dont think the intention was irony but a feeble attempt to tarnishing the protagonists with the same brush. However, which ever way you read it, it would as ridiculous as Mr Brown talking about climate changing and bereating the nuter that poored custard over Madelson.
From the EASA point of view, it doesn't matter that the IMCr has "stood the test of time". EASA's goal is about raising safety standards to a common level in Europe, as defined in the thousands of pages of JAA and, now, EASA documentation. Your inability to grasp this point is why you will be typing the same stuff post after post after post. It doesn't matter. Whatever the strenght of your claims about the record for the IMCr (most of which I agree with), it doesn't fit the "standards" of EASA.
I find that a sad inditement of the whole process. You seem to be saying it doesnt matter to EASA whether or not there is a proven safety case, we are far more concerned with a common standard. EASA is mandated to safety by way of common standard.