I agree with Quix’s post and I’ll add adding restrictions on an open thread, IMHO, is playing into the left’s agenda of PC.
PC. Where the truth cannot be spoken and everyone must fall into alignment. Conservatism has no place for PC.
If one is thin skin and need restrictions/protection, they aren’t ready for battle. They have no place here, IMHO. There are caucus threads that would suit them better.
I agree with Quix’s post and I’ll add adding restrictions on an open thread, IMHO, is playing into the left’s agenda of PC.
PC. Where the truth cannot be spoken and everyone must fall into alignment. Conservatism has no place for PC.
If one is thin skin and need restrictions/protection, they aren’t ready for battle. They have no place here, IMHO. There are caucus threads that would suit them better.
THANKS. MUCH AGREE.
I agree.
I hate to think that the discussion is being manipulated or controlled by the thin skinned so that too much is disallowed under the guise of accusing someone of finessing the RF rules. There's hardly a way of disagreeing on a religious issue without someone complaining that someone else is calling them a liar.
If someone posts something that is not correct, a better response would be "No, that's wrong." Accusing someone of being a liar does involve presuming that you know the intent was to deceive, as opposed to not knowing the facts or being misinformed.
I would add, too, that if someone tells you that you are wrong, it would be courteous at least to correct the error instead of sending people off on wild goose chases to find the *truth* themselves. If someone knows that something is wrong, it behooves THEM to correct the person themselves and provide the evidence to back themselves up. A flat out assertion that someone is wrong with no correction with information is a waste of time. It's not going to convince anyone.
There are caucus threads that would suit them better.
I kind of thought that's what the different thread designations were for anyway.