[Defiant]

I gave you a chance to be gracious, but you just don't want to take it, do you? We don't allow profane personal attacks on this forum. You might want to take it to a news feed or yahoo groups if that's what you like. If pointing out a very poorly written headline that you didn't even write is enough to set you off, God only knows what would happen if someone disagreed with you.

Yes, most of the new laws in California are a travesty. No one is going to take the commentary seriously, though, where the author of an article that appears in some kind of La Mesa news blog, doesn't know the difference between "out" and "ought". If they want to be thought of as citizen journalists, they "ought" to be able to self-edit. So should you, and the next time you are angry and depressed, and unhappy with your life and you take to the interwebs to channel some of that anger, and you would like to use profanity in the midst of a civil discussion, you might consider backing away from the keyboard for a minute.

[drpix]

After posting an article and comment - concerning serious matters that should be seen as threats to the Republic - I found a reply that advocated driving either or both from the internet, because of spelling errors, extremely offensive.

Not knowing the motivation, I could only deem it a #$%@$$ annoyance and told that poster so. After the exchange of a few more comments, along the same lines, that poster had my last comment (#34) using the same #$%@$$ adjective "removed by Moderator".

Has that poster finally dropped the cause of spelling purity and gone directly to the cause of silencing others. After all, while the adjective I used was scatological and to some vulgar, it certainly was not profane. Moreover, before using that adjective the 2nd time, I checked Google for accepted use on FR. Google searchs return 4,250 results for the (vulgar?) root alone (LINK) and 329 results for the specific variation I used (LINK). ]

Does scratching the surface of a spelling-nazi reveal a speech-nazi? Whatever the answer, since what I had to say was more important than the use of that particular word, here is that removed comment, minus the word in question:

  Politicians enacting more laws against the law abiding & not criminals IS anger provoking.

  A state's chief law enforcement officer campaigning against the fear of crime & not crime
  itself IS anger provoking.

  A poster's dismissive reply about spelling errors (in the article or my comment) IS a 
  #$%$#!& annoyance.

  A poster assuming the role of another's school counselor IS a pompous absurdity.

  I do not read or post on FR for discussions on spelling or for liberal psychobabble on 
  anger management.

  ENOUGH of this foolish diversion!

I truly hope the administrators & moderators of FR remain free from influence of those who would silence patriotic freedom loving American voices - by using the pretense of being offended by words already commonly used on FR or by mispellings.