Are you "insulted" by my comments? That is too bad, but consider the reality that I am not anymore responsible for your "feelings" than I am for the misunderstanding of the others in here who jump to stupid conclusions (not that yours were, btw).
You are making it a little difficult for people defending you here to like you. When somebody "nit-picks" your use of indefinite articles as a means of trying to clear up misunderstandings and offer you friendly and constructive advice on how to prevent future misunderstanding, that really doesn't call for the type of responses you have directed to this and similar posters.
You asserted that you are not responsible for the "misunderstanding of the others in here who jump to stupid conclusions." While that is true, one of the qualities of a good writer is that he takes responsibility for preventing misunderstandings of the reader. In other words, a good writer makes a conscious effort to ensure that his words are clear and his intent is clearly communicated. A careful reading of your original post would indicate you were criticizing the other site's hypocrisy and not FR. However, your intent would have been clearer had you been a bit more specific in who you were talking about. As it was written, it is easy to see how readers misunderstood -- a result of their lazy reading and your lazy writing.
As for your contention that the people who jumped into this thread with their jpegs and comments are the real "trolls", most of these posters have well established their credentials as conservatives and they enjoy identifying and ridiculing the trolls who attempt to register on FR to post their idiotic and disruptive comments. You got caught up in their enthusiasm when a few people misinterpreted your post. Learn from it and work on using your writing skills to communicate more clearly when you post, and you will probably make some good friends.
"You are making it a little difficult for people defending you here to like you."
Well, I'm not really interested in being 'liked'. I post to express my opinion, and that's what I do. I'll leave making-friends to you.
"When somebody "nit-picks" your use of indefinite articles as a means of trying to clear up misunderstandings and offer you friendly and constructive advice on how to prevent future misunderstanding, that really doesn't call for the type of responses you have directed to this and similar posters."
Making 'me' the subject is a 'tell' on the capacity of that correspondent to actually 'think'. Why should I subjugate my concern, on-point, to such a technique of intellectual avoidance in response? Why should I allow such off subject patronization to continue at my expense? Should I start explaining to you just exactly what you are 'doing' wrong/incorrectly and assume some intellectual superiority by having done so? Would you say, "Thanks, you're my friend for life and please help me to explain myself, in future"?
No, because you would know that I was a supercilious jerk for assuming that superiority in grammar/understanding.
"You asserted that you are not responsible for the "misunderstanding of the others in here who jump to stupid conclusions." While that is true, one of the qualities of a good writer is that he takes responsibility for preventing misunderstandings of the reader. In other words, a good writer makes a conscious effort to ensure that his words are clear and his intent is clearly communicated. A careful reading of your original post would indicate you were criticizing the other site's hypocrisy and not FR. However, your intent would have been clearer had you been a bit more specific in who you were talking about. As it was written, it is easy to see how readers misunderstood -- a result of their lazy reading and your lazy writing."
Let me get this straight -- you read from the start and understood what I was saying, but take some little effort to defend those who misunderstood by criticising the lack of 'good' writing? And, of course as I mentioned, patronizing me by making my writing skills the neo-subject of this thread. . .unreal. . .
"As for your contention that the people who jumped into this thread with their jpegs and comments are the real "trolls", most of these posters have well established their credentials as conservatives and they enjoy identifying and ridiculing the trolls who attempt to register on FR to post their idiotic and disruptive comments."
*They* the putative 'trolls' are the exact same kind that lurk in ST. Their 'roll' isn't earned by any previous, reasonable commentary -- it is assumed by them because they can't think, they can't write, and they haven't an original thought in their *collective* heads. Go fool someone else. . .'friend'.
"You got caught up in their enthusiasm when a few people misinterpreted your post. Learn from it and work on using your writing skills to communicate more clearly when you post, and you will probably make some good friends."
Their "enthusiasm" is that of a mob who only ever listen to their own riotous voices (or jpg's). Their idea of a reply is the (to you evidently) perfectly understandable word (one word) "ZOT". I dislike "gangs" even more than I dislike patronizing jerks and grammarians. . .
Got that, 'friend'?