Once again all I read there is that it is all about YOU and what YOU want here. You are real good about thinking of yourself over all. In the mean time you engaged me first with a question. I answered that question fairly and honestly with a cordial reply. Then you proceeded to start an argument with me about intolerance and yet the previous conversation had absolutely nothing to do with intolerance AT ALL. You put me in a position where I had to defend myself then you dishonestly twisted my self defense into “intolerance”. I was supposed to just take whatever aggression you pointed at me and not even defend myself or I am being “intolerant”? I don’t know what alternate reality you live in. But self defense of individualism is not “intolerance”. You wanted to bring it up and dog me with it because you do not like the truth I share here. You do not like that I do not stay on the rails and follow strict in the box group think. Is this place supposed to be a “one mindframe only never have a personal original thought of your own” platform? You do not like that I respect individual independence of opinion as dictated BY THE CONSTITUTION? So you respect the Constitution but only when it is herd approved ideology? So yes I am intolerant to someone who would do that with no just cause and who spins everything around backwards from what it really is... Yes I am intolerant with those who live in an alternate reality. Yes I am intolerant with those who ONLY selfishly think of themselves and what they want others to be. And yes I am intolerant with those who tell me I am not allowed to be an individual without group think and I need to stay in the box or else. Your extreme extrapolative reaction to my posting the FR position statement - which does not mean to me all that you have me to make it mean - and my response to your attack on me (which is which indeed one of intolerance) indicates that there is something else driving you that renders any kind of real or perceived counter view to be intolerable, as if advocating "group think."
Which reactionary response discourages attempts at unreasonable exchange of views, as such may provoke another prolix protest, and thus I will leave you be until reasonable exchange can be had.