> Seems to me that you are simply getting back what you are
> dishing out.
Did I dish out any personal attacks on you or any of those who responded to me aggressively?
Was I confronting you?
I was expressing my opinion about Bristol’s participation in a tawdry TV dance show, with people who likely hate her mother and everything that she stands for, which translates to me as an exhibition of bad taste. What makes it wanton, is that she should know how this could adversely affect her mother, but she didn’t seem to care.
I expressed my opinion that the photos on this thread reinforced my original opinion as to the tawdry nature of the TV dance show, and that the photos from that dance looked to me like soft porn.
How is that a personal attack on you or anybody else in this forum? How is that confrontational to you? Why must that translate into personal attacks on me?
Why can’t you say, simply, “I disagree, because ... yada yada yada ...”, whereupon we can have a spirited, intelligent discourse marketing our ideas without ad hominem and invective?
Are you never harshly critical of any public figures or their adult children?
Does that merit invective or ad hominem against you?
How is that a personal attack on you or anybody else in this forum? How is that confrontational to you? Why must that translate into personal attacks on me?
Read what I said and address it. I NEVER said that your first post was a personal attack on me or anybody on this forum.
Are you never harshly critical of any public figures or their adult children?
Public figures, yes.
Does that merit invective or ad hominem against you?
If a person's criticism about a public figure (or anybody) is wrong, then certainly that wrong opinion is worthy of criticism.
If that wrong opinion about a public figure is outrageous, careless or irresponsible, then yes that person is worthy of ad hominem criticism.
Have you ever called a public commentator, such has James Carville an idiot because of his point of view?
I would bet most reasonable people have.