The point is you didn't consider it prudent to "(use) a story about an alleged tragedy as a platform" while disregarding the clear history of the AP (particuarly since 2000) and the ACLU since it's inception but more distinctly since the mid-sixties. Essentially you "used a story about an alleged tragedy as a platform" as a platform to allege a tragedy of thought. Your initial reaction to that poster's digs at AP/ACLU is similar to liberals who felt United 93 was "too soon."
I don't find it terribly enlightening, however, to discuss a topic in which the all responses will essentially be "Yeah! Me too!".
Most threads are that way, some are not. Your posts to other stories clearly show that you are arguing for arguments sake - nitpicking (such as in this case) while put off when someone nitpicks about your nitpicking.
Talking in circles is fun and all, but you really didn't say very much.
If you'd like to discuss one of those issues in which I was "nitpicking" about silly things like the Constitution, feel free. You certainly did indicate earlier that you were more than able to do so, but just couldn't find the time. Instead, you chose to spend time trying (again) to see if we can have a little contest about who can dislike the ACLU the most.