You’re a classic example.
I hereby release myself from ever commenting to your posts in the future.
Try to find some happiness my friend - life is to short to spend it looking for conflict.
Adios.
You can run, but you can’t hide, mister liberal.
(Reagan Man)'s the guy who went me yesterday.
Glad to hear I have company out there.
He’s a angry young man - but I respect his hard edge.
He has his rights - hope he allows me my own.
Having commented at length and personally about RM, Jake now says:
You’re a classic example.
I hereby release myself from ever commenting to your posts in the future.
Try to find some happiness my friend - life is to short to spend it looking for conflict.
Adios.
As if commenting on a person who isn't even posting in the thread at the time isn't "looking for conflict".
I find that if I want to ignore another poster, it usually works better if I don't call him out without provocation in my own posts.
And if I DO mention them, I ping them to my post so they can respond. That's called manners, and is part of civil behavior which includes not dragging conflicts from other threads into new threads.
Each thread can generate it's own conflicts.
Of course here there were no conflicts until pro-rudy posters started complaining about how they WOULD get attacked. Kind of a pre-emptive thing, I guess. It's rare to read a pro-rudy thread where the supporters don't complain about being attacked BEFORE anybody shows up to discuss the issues, or where those COMPLAINTS aren't the first thing that cause arguments.
Of course, if I supported Rudy and were posting puff pieces about him, I would want to discourage discussion of the article by distracting people too. If I didn't someone might ask me a substantive question about my candidate and I'd have to go repost the whole thing to get away from them.