Oh for BBG, your post on the Dilemma thread re 2 women who YOU think that YOU Imply YOU would bang the pair of Natalie Portman and Joss Stone (no mention of consensuality) is ok and reasonable is also referenced. Your moral hypocrisy has been self highlighted and apparent misogyny is not a good look for you, Sleep well.
The fact you can't see obvious sarcasm where it's obviously sarcasm undermines your credibility somewhat. BBG is mocking the OP, not drooling over the women.
Even taken at face value, BBG is quite clearly not implying that he/she would do anything and is offering advice to the OP. The only inference that can be made, if you're taking the comment literally, is that BBG might not have a problem with open relationships.
As to libel, if people who know you in real life saw BBG's comment then they are likely to have seen the wider discussion, with views ranging from it being abuse to it being a reasonable interpretation, so any hurt to your reputation would have been tempered by that.
Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 affords a defence of "honest opinion", which "is designed to protect statements that count as opinion or comment, provided the statement indicates the basis of that opinion and provided it could be held by an honest person" (
from here). It's difficult to see how BBG's interpretation of your position on arms sales doesn't qualify here - especially with others accepting that it was a reasonable interpretation in the ensuing discussion.
Given both of the above I'm not sure that spending your time and/or money on chasing a libel is worthwhile, but I'm not a lawyer.
Your board persona has, in my opinion, always included a large dose of theatrical pomposity and this just smacks of that.