(Always) with all due respect, finally it is now certainly appreciated, by the majority of the people reading, the weakness of your position on the subject discussed.
What really is no basis for (further) discution are things like repeating completlely refuted arguments, trying to refute methaphorical or shematic arguments aplying them literaly, trying to imply that it is the other part who is simply and gratuitly(?) declaring the inferiourness of the opponent’s argumentacion,… and so on. Demagogia it is called (even if not bad-intended, of course).
Besides all the not conceding aknoleage of your other mistakes on this matter, it stood now — more then ever — at daylight your (more or less conscient) intentions of simply make-believe that the rules of chess tell the opposite of what they tell, in order to accept what one thinks is fair, and because it have somewhat been “common pratice”. THAT is the absurd thing here.
Now also for a smile: As you’re probably no Edison here, you can also be sure my name (nor role) is not Fidel nor Raul.

“2. ‚ÄúCommon pratice‚Äù: Death penalty, slavery, and thowsants of other things are or were common pratice. ”
Of course, something that was common practice for decades to centuries can still be declared illegal by mutual consent. Taking things to another level: The UN Declaration of Human Rights explicitly bans slavery (and torture) – apparently no consensus could be reached regarding the death penalty [further discussion on this would be off-topic].
However, no single person can define or impose such a consensus. I cannot, you cannot, noone else can. No matter who you are in real life, even if your first name happens to be Fidel or Raul (admittedly a cheap off-topic joke, don’t take it personally).

“9. So, you see, we‚Äôre both entitled to our oppinions, of course. I just say that your‚Äôs … is simply unsustainable”
Strange, both opinions are permitted – yet you solemnly declare that mine is wrong!? Not really a basis for (further) discussion.

It’s very conforting to see you noticed the sighnings « ” “». You discovered the powder (of the original intention)
BTW More conforting would be you noticing the methaphorical nature of point 8. (For instance, after all, Smeets had choice)

1. Agreed “so far”, sure;
2. “Common pratice”: Death penalty, slavery, and thowsants of other things are or were common pratice. Question closed? If not for you, sure it is now, for me!
3. Every management of the clock not considered on the rules (after your move, or in order to call for an arbiter) falls, for that reason, on grounds of disturbing the opponent, being enough for that consideration that the opponent complains or an arbiter witnesses. Question closed? If not for you, sure it is now, for me!
4. “Radjabov cannot complain, he did exactly the same thing against Ivanchuk.” is an auto-anulled sentence, in serious, adult, non-TV-politicians matters. It’s incredible how some clear thing passes unnoticed, but it happens to all of us, once in a while. Of course Radjabov can complain! It’s for the arbiters to consider it when right, and to dismiss when not. Question closed? If not for you, sure it is now, for me!
5. You’re right about the languages, and the “Jaaa”. It’s not a big question here, it’s, as you say, completely “understandable” (but sure it’s a kind of thing that can be complained about, sometimes). Not of much importance here, IMHO.
6. “And now it is time to call the arbiter”. Wrong (as I explained in item 3). Time to call the arbiter is anytime after each fault (Radja or Smeets). Question closed? If not for you, sure it is now, for me! (Sorry for repeating, don’t want you to think it is different here)
7. One could put even more interesting variables on the scenarios, but it realy seems to me that you didn’t go deep on the exercise of the scenarios I sugested. I think you’ll somewhat change something in your aproach.
8. Anyway, let me stress one last time something:
Even if you think that your neigbour is a deadly danger to the society, and even if he punched you in the face, and even if it is “common pratice” on your village to kill neigbours, you’re really not entitled to defend yourself by any means, for instance that one, killing him (unless the exceptions THE LAW says). Of course sometimes you could really need to kill him and be unable to meet the law’s requirments (for instance, unable to prove your state of need). Then, you would kill him anyway (what choice had you?), but don’t expect to be, after all, under the law! Or that the law would not punish you…
9. So, you see, we’re both entitled to our oppinions, of course. I just say that your’s (and many more and of great importance too) is simply unsustainable (Of course, sometimes there are people who can mantain and even force unsustainable oppinions and decisions, but that is why I mentioned politics).
Cheers!