AGAIN!
THE
"WAIL-WHINE-
THIN-SKINNED-
POOR-PUT-UPON-RC'S-
DEATH-SPIRAL-BREAK-DANCE!"
.
.
.
ALL TOGETHER NOW
LET'S
SHED
A
TEAR
IN
SUPPORT
OF
THE
PROFESSIONAL
WHITE HANKY
POUT!
.
---
.
SIGH
This is merely one example of one sort of posting behavior that your rules have, so far, protected.
Here's the situation:
1. I make a complaint about the new rules.
2. The poster involved posts a post directly to me (but covers up by posting a bunch of other folks).
3. In it, the poster posts a picture of a crying baby.
4. The accompanying text is an incoherent, border-line psychotic harangue about how “AGAIN!” the “poor RCs” are whining and are thin-skinned.
In what way is this not a personal attack? Because the attack wears the nanometer-thick veil of speaking “generally” about RCs, rather than specifically using my screen name?
LOL!
Yet, the poster who posted this posts such attacks multiple times per day.
Ironically, it appears that this sort of behavior is only protected if one is a NON-Catholic, as when a CATHOLIC poster did much the same thing, he got dinged for it. You called it “finessing the guidelines.”
But the poster who posted this garbage does this sort of thing - “finessing the guidelines” - many times every single day.
Frankly, if direct accusations of lying, etc., are to be forbidden, I don't see why this sort of thing shouldn't be forbidden. And if this is NOT to be forbidden, it would be nice if the rule were applied even-handedly.
My own preference is either to recognize that the rules for “open” threads do NOT in any way resemble a town square, and then to balance the rules by restricting personal attacks through group attacks, OR make the place MORE like a town square, with actual freedom of speech, and permit the impeachment of the credibility of posters.
sitetest
Tell me that post, while within the guidelines, was not intentionally inflammatory.