No, I'm not angry. I am trying to make a point. Words such as insane, drunk and lawyer are unnecessary in these discussions and, when used, tend to inflame.
Out of curiosity, how would you feel about such things as the following, had they been posted by a signer of the agreement?
"...creationist witness fanatics who won't discuss or explain their ideology at all --- just cram it down everyone's throat!"Would you consider these examples to be somehow worse and more inflammatory than using the word "drunk" when trying to make a point about messed-up DNA structures?"reminds me of napoleans -- emperors --- in china THEY CALL THEM DIRT EMPERORS (( raving lunatics )) !"
"creationism has become a form of tribalism --- canibalism --- mindnaping --- slavery!"
"Flakes can't handle reality - truth when they're only hypeing bias - schlock ! They don't have an inkling or understanding in what they are doing - believing - preaching ... rote ideology --- trojan straw - stick ass and they call it science!"
"Creationism is a 2nd act play - farce ... w / o an act one and three --- clowns!"
"creationism is the most bigotted and racist abortion --- spiritual - intellectual rape - murder - tyranny!"
"Must be an admission ... that creationism is for the retarded - infantile and --- science is for the adult - intelligent!"
"independence of anything --- thinking is forbidden --- BLOCKED by infantile crippled minds --- radiation by lies - creationism!"
Would you feel more compelled to chastise a poster who said things like the above than you would to make an issue out of an indirect use of the word "drunk", for example?
Would you consider someone a hypocrit for obsessing over the word "drunk" as an inexcusable breach while overlooking such things as the above examples?
Would you call these "unnecessary" and "belittling"?
Why or why not?
And what would you propose be done about someone who wrote such things?