<strong>Yeah, how was it possible for the three years of AI before FellowshipChurchiBook showed up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo! FSC was pretty much in response to one member wrestling his own faith by posting Oh, say, a new topic every 5 minutes about his God and the ignorance of everybody who didn't worship it. All it took was for a few of the latent Jesus freaks (NoahJ) to join the chorus and it felt like the Mor(m)ons/Jehova's had lined up around the block to pester you during a fine Sunday of football and beer.
Providing that intelligence rules the overall presentation, I don't think anyone will object to religious or political threads, even slightly more frivolous permutations or a warm ember here and there.
more like they don't care all that much... its not like they get paid you know...
the thing is it <<rampant flaming>> is so rampant in FC because it has almost become accepted... It is very hard to reverse this behavior... the best option is to get rid of FC altogether and start over again in AO...
they are trying to remove this stigma created by having a separate "thick skinned" forum by getting rid of FC and merging it with the more civil AO</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. I believe Groverat was the leading "thick-skinner....." It doesn't matter though. What matters is that they had the balls to delete AppleInsider's most popular forum regardless of the backlash because it had insurmountable problems. I look forward to the challenge of more scrutiny of posts in AppleOutsider.
Perhaps we could keep FSC but have it hidden sort of like Silicon Alley (.../.../ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=13) and those die hard fans could just keep there heated discussions to themself.
The reason for the heated arguments in Fireside chat are the topics. Politics, religion and so on are things a lot of people identify with as part of themselves. So people get upset, peed off, insulted and react instinctively and not always in a way they agree with in retrospect.
Bingo! FSC was pretty much in response to one member wrestling his own faith by posting Oh, say, a new topic every 5 minutes about his God and the ignorance of everybody who didn't worship it. All it took was for a few of the latent Jesus freaks (NoahJ) to join the chorus and it felt like the Mor(m)ons/Jehova's had lined up around the block to pester you during a fine Sunday of football and beer.
Providing that intelligence rules the overall presentation, I don't think anyone will object to religious or political threads, even slightly more frivolous permutations or a warm ember here and there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may add Euro and Arabophobia to that (someone ring Webster's I may have made up a new word )
Anyhoo, it's a bit easy to "blame Canada". Yes he pees me off as well but there are other members, myself included, who have contributed with posts merely to insult someone or pee them off.
Political discussions often get heated and often get out of hand. Has anyone ever seen the English House of Commons on telly??
It did start to become a bit of a broken record though. The Middle Eastern conflict has been argued to death by now and we will never agree. The only worrying thing about that is that if we can't even agree, what real hope is there of them agreeing?
<strong>The reason for the heated arguments in Fireside chat are the topics. Politics, religion and so on are things a lot of people identify with as part of themselves. So people get upset, peed off, insulted and react instinctively and not always in a way they agree with in retrospect.
What's the problem with that? It's human nature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> There's no reason to remain uncivil. There's no reason to have threads that degenerate into anything but good discussions. I've probably posted there more than anyone. Believe me, I've been there.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> There's no reason to remain uncivil. There's no reason to have threads that degenerate into anything but good discussions. I've probably posted there more than anyone. Believe me, I've been there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have posted here probably more than anyone. It is my contention that the AppleOutside will become just like Fireside Chat.
The reason is not the material.
The reason is not the mods.
The reason is over 2300 posts of this nature just since July, literally 18+ posts a day.
This is a little long and I trimmed it as much as I could... ladies and gentlemen... the selected quotations of ShawnPatrickJoyce.
[quote]What kind of pimps own you that 90 million can be considered "utter anal raping."
That's just ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
Ignorant I would say
Pscates post was rooted in ignorance. I am blissfully more informed that he was at 19
Essentially.
Indeed.
God doesn't exist, brother.
chweave, NO.
Rashumon, your standards are unacceptably low. No further understanding is necessary.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Quite simply, your standards are just too low. (Your emotional posts only help to confirm that). So stop your whining. Certain people here just ruin it for the rest of us, and for that I welcome the promise of more moderation when the switch happens.
See you around, when we get to discuss real issues like adults.
I won't have to, because posts from people like you will be scrutinized. I'm not going to sit here and further bicker with you over trivial stuff.
<-- smiley
You're not my cup of tea either, NUM
No, I said before that it's not as simple as whether something is addictive or not. Please try not to gain the upper hand by using my logic against me. It really makes a fool of you.
Do you intentionally not listen to what I say, or are you just that dense?
Ditto.
I rarely resort to mocking one's post, but "what clinches it for me" is that you have not read my posts. I have stated about five different times that I also think it's absurd to incarcerate drug users. Rehabilitate them instead!
Objects of the preposition remain null when deciding to make your verb singular or plural. That being said, "5.6 million pounds were seized."
kill it and hopefully these pot-heads will go away too.
FormerLurker's a pothead too.
Rashumon, you mean you were too lazy to actually read 5 pages of people arguing for and against pot to have your question answered? Get real.
It's the same ****ing point discussed throughout 5 pages of this thread here. If you have something "pertinent" to add, by all means go ahead. But don't rehash the same questions posed two, three, four pages ago.Yeah.
What the hell are you laughing about?
And your mindless insistence of advocating reaching equality on nature's terms rather than on terms that can speed up the process is numbing to me.
The purpose of rebuttal is not only to respond to opposing arguments but also to further advance your initial arguments. That being said, squabbling line by line is pointless. We're smart enough here to think in paragraphs,
I'm not going to get into a stupid discussion saying I don't write substantively. You tell me ONE thread that hasn't spun out of control or lost focus with you posting in it.
Every single one of your points have been discussed here. I'd advise you to actually read my points.
Since it seems you have a selective amnesia problem, I'll show you how I covered that point in my first post in this thread.
So that's the way it "REALLY" happens? Am I to take your "WORD" for it?
This is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot have an informed discussion without links to back up statements that obviously need backing up. The redundancy and repetition of points here is also an issue. Ridiculous to even have a discussion where people get all riled up in capital letters and bold font to say "WHATTTARUUUUU TALKING ABOUTTT???" I would think the, "Well, according to this source, blah blah blah, this is the way it really is" method is "just a tad" bit better.
Ditto.
No, that's a racist attitude, not a correct one.
SDW, grow up. <hr></blockquote>
Note the number of different people accused and insulted here. I didn't any where he banged on Fellowship, that would have been several pages long.
Proof positive that if you repeat something often enough, it will be true.
He said there is no reason to remain uncivil. He never said he hasn't been so.
Which, by the way, wasn't what I was saying either SPJ. I said that it's normal for people to react that way - not for them to remain so.
Of course there are one or two personal vendettas in there but what is one to expect when you discuss highly sensitive content with a group containing religious fanatics, extreme lefties and jewish extremists?
I would simply say on this matter that I opened many threads over subjects that I found important. To those threads some would respond or react with personal attacks. It was far and few between that I would use a personal attack. I am not saying I never did it but rather that it was not often.
I believe that civil discussion is the way for people to see the views of others. We must allow for the views of all the members to be heard in a civil way.
I think the way that this could be done is by allowing any topic to be discussed and manage it in a different way... For example:
Instead of locking a thread because it falls into an insult match. Ban the member who starts using rude tone for one week. I think if members knew that they would be banned for one week if they use insulting responses to threads or posts that it is not tolerated.
The problem with how it is now is that either a good thread gets locked because one heckler starts the insult party. Or even an entire forum gets locked because some of the hecklers heckle their insults through many threads.
Again to lock out the discussion (thread) or (forum) is the wrong choice.
To lock the rude member for one week every time that member chooses to respond in a rude way is the answer in my humble opinion.
I think this kind of rule with consequence is something that would encourage compliance to civil and meaningful discussions.
At the same time it would not censor out items of discussion. People could be free to discuss what they like to discuss. It is just the environment would be enlightened and remain much more civil.
I respect what the admin / mods do with their site.
I've heard of "know-it-all" types before, but this kinda takes the cake, gang.
"And my Tonka truck collection was more yellow than yours was at 8 years old..."
"pscates' post was rooted" in hardcore, months-long observation and meticulous mental note-keeping, guys.
When you're 19-years-old, you simply don't know everything you think you do. You're simply too young and haven't truly been out into the world to back up or qualify all you think you know.
It's not a personal slam or anything like that. I was quite different 14 years ago than I am today, that's all. Most people ARE.
How, exactly, is that "rooted in ignorance"? Probably one of the smartest, truest things ever said at AppleInsider.
Closing FC :eek: . It could be a good or a bad move depending on how AO will be moderated. I liked it when AO was a mix of funny and more serious discussions because each thread had its share of both. When divided the funny became silly or (for me) irrelevant chat-worthy thread in AO and the serious became "go for the man instead of the ball" threads and both places seemed mostly like deserts to me. If we could bring back the "him who only take comedy for comedy and tradegy for tradegy have not understood any of the two" feeling back to AO I´m all for it.
Lets test it. Mods: Will AO be open for thread like this classic of mine <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000575"; target="_blank">French foreign minister speaks out</a> or would it have been closed from the beginning or perhaps when frogs were introduced?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Boyoboy.... there sure were some gems in that thread . . . some round houses for sure <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Funny how it seemed so long ago and yet is so very relevant . . . especially regarding Bush's "strategy" of dealing with North Korea and the rest of the world's ideas about his so called "strategy"
Let's see, because they're (we're?) trying to run a decent message board and an entire forum devoted to idiotic flamewars brings the attitude of the entire board down.
Fireside Chat was a failed experiment.
moogs:
[quote]Apparently no one likes my idea for sparing AO from rampant political / religious BS.<hr></blockquote>
I have a plan, it's called The Unholy Beatdown Stick. Any misplaced FC thread that I see will be locked. People who try to start flamewars in AO will be warned by me.
This is not Fireside Chat, anyone who thinks it will be is very sorely mistaken. If it takes a sea of locks then so be it, I've been called a Nazi by the whiners in the past and it didn't bother me then, no reason to believe it will bother me in future.
I've heard of "know-it-all" types before, but this kinda takes the cake, gang.
"And my Tonka truck collection was more yellow than yours was at 8 years old..."
"pscates' post was rooted" in hardcore, months-long observation and meticulous mental note-keeping, guys.
When you're 19-years-old, you simply don't know everything you think you do. You're simply too young and haven't truly been out into the world to back up or qualify all you think you know.
It's not a personal slam or anything like that. I was quite different 14 years ago than I am today, that's all. Most people ARE.
How, exactly, is that "rooted in ignorance"? Probably one of the smartest, truest things ever said at AppleInsider.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know what, I had a paragraph or two here initally, but screw it. If you're going base your entire post on the whining about me calling your arguments "rooted in ignorance" not even in the thread to which you probably should have replied in the first place. If you're going to do that then use your Private Messages. That's what it's there for.
But if my arguments are wrong, then there's a case to be made in another perfectly good thread up right now debating, among other things, how voting Democratic can actually help your economic situation out. Maybe it sounds familiar?
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>I would simply say on this matter that I opened many threads over subjects that I found important. To those threads some would respond or react with personal attacks. It was far and few between that I would use a personal attack. I am not saying I never did it but rather that it was not often.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mate! When you start 5 threads a day about evil Arabs and another 5 about uncivilized Europeans without anything to back it up rather than an article about once incident, involving one guy that you copied off your own church website, or wherever, you attack millions of people at a time!
People tried to tell you that over and over again - however it never seemed to get through to you. So when people are then lost for words they get frustrated and tell you to f off. You deserved it - each and every hostile reply you have received has been a result of your hostile posting.
You did read the whole you reap what you sow part no?
Comments
<strong>Yeah, how was it possible for the three years of AI before FellowshipChurchiBook showed up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo! FSC was pretty much in response to one member wrestling his own faith by posting Oh, say, a new topic every 5 minutes about his God and the ignorance of everybody who didn't worship it. All it took was for a few of the latent Jesus freaks (NoahJ) to join the chorus and it felt like the Mor(m)ons/Jehova's had lined up around the block to pester you during a fine Sunday of football and beer.
Providing that intelligence rules the overall presentation, I don't think anyone will object to religious or political threads, even slightly more frivolous permutations or a warm ember here and there.
<strong> not courage... more like ambition/time
more like they don't care all that much... its not like they get paid you know...
the thing is it <<rampant flaming>> is so rampant in FC because it has almost become accepted... It is very hard to reverse this behavior... the best option is to get rid of FC altogether and start over again in AO...
they are trying to remove this stigma created by having a separate "thick skinned" forum by getting rid of FC and merging it with the more civil AO</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. I believe Groverat was the leading "thick-skinner....." It doesn't matter though. What matters is that they had the balls to delete AppleInsider's most popular forum regardless of the backlash because it had insurmountable problems. I look forward to the challenge of more scrutiny of posts in AppleOutsider.
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
What's the problem with that? It's human nature.
<strong>
Bingo! FSC was pretty much in response to one member wrestling his own faith by posting Oh, say, a new topic every 5 minutes about his God and the ignorance of everybody who didn't worship it. All it took was for a few of the latent Jesus freaks (NoahJ) to join the chorus and it felt like the Mor(m)ons/Jehova's had lined up around the block to pester you during a fine Sunday of football and beer.
Providing that intelligence rules the overall presentation, I don't think anyone will object to religious or political threads, even slightly more frivolous permutations or a warm ember here and there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may add Euro and Arabophobia to that (someone ring Webster's I may have made up a new word
Anyhoo, it's a bit easy to "blame Canada". Yes he pees me off as well but there are other members, myself included, who have contributed with posts merely to insult someone or pee them off.
Political discussions often get heated and often get out of hand. Has anyone ever seen the English House of Commons on telly??
It did start to become a bit of a broken record though. The Middle Eastern conflict has been argued to death by now and we will never agree. The only worrying thing about that is that if we can't even agree, what real hope is there of them agreeing?
<strong>The reason for the heated arguments in Fireside chat are the topics. Politics, religion and so on are things a lot of people identify with as part of themselves. So people get upset, peed off, insulted and react instinctively and not always in a way they agree with in retrospect.
What's the problem with that? It's human nature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> There's no reason to remain uncivil. There's no reason to have threads that degenerate into anything but good discussions. I've probably posted there more than anyone. Believe me, I've been there.
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> There's no reason to remain uncivil. There's no reason to have threads that degenerate into anything but good discussions. I've probably posted there more than anyone. Believe me, I've been there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have posted here probably more than anyone. It is my contention that the AppleOutside will become just like Fireside Chat.
The reason is not the material.
The reason is not the mods.
The reason is over 2300 posts of this nature just since July, literally 18+ posts a day.
This is a little long and I trimmed it as much as I could... ladies and gentlemen... the selected quotations of ShawnPatrickJoyce.
[quote]What kind of pimps own you that 90 million can be considered "utter anal raping."
That's just ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
Ignorant I would say
Pscates post was rooted in ignorance. I am blissfully more informed that he was at 19
Essentially.
Indeed.
God doesn't exist, brother.
chweave, NO.
Rashumon, your standards are unacceptably low. No further understanding is necessary.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Quite simply, your standards are just too low. (Your emotional posts only help to confirm that). So stop your whining. Certain people here just ruin it for the rest of us, and for that I welcome the promise of more moderation when the switch happens.
See you around, when we get to discuss real issues like adults.
I won't have to, because posts from people like you will be scrutinized. I'm not going to sit here and further bicker with you over trivial stuff.
<-- smiley
You're not my cup of tea either, NUM
No, I said before that it's not as simple as whether something is addictive or not. Please try not to gain the upper hand by using my logic against me. It really makes a fool of you.
Do you intentionally not listen to what I say, or are you just that dense?
Ditto.
I rarely resort to mocking one's post, but "what clinches it for me" is that you have not read my posts. I have stated about five different times that I also think it's absurd to incarcerate drug users. Rehabilitate them instead!
Objects of the preposition remain null when deciding to make your verb singular or plural. That being said, "5.6 million pounds were seized."
kill it and hopefully these pot-heads will go away too.
FormerLurker's a pothead too.
Rashumon, you mean you were too lazy to actually read 5 pages of people arguing for and against pot to have your question answered? Get real.
It's the same ****ing point discussed throughout 5 pages of this thread here. If you have something "pertinent" to add, by all means go ahead. But don't rehash the same questions posed two, three, four pages ago.Yeah.
What the hell are you laughing about?
And your mindless insistence of advocating reaching equality on nature's terms rather than on terms that can speed up the process is numbing to me.
The purpose of rebuttal is not only to respond to opposing arguments but also to further advance your initial arguments. That being said, squabbling line by line is pointless. We're smart enough here to think in paragraphs,
I'm not going to get into a stupid discussion saying I don't write substantively. You tell me ONE thread that hasn't spun out of control or lost focus with you posting in it.
Every single one of your points have been discussed here. I'd advise you to actually read my points.
Since it seems you have a selective amnesia problem, I'll show you how I covered that point in my first post in this thread.
So that's the way it "REALLY" happens? Am I to take your "WORD" for it?
This is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot have an informed discussion without links to back up statements that obviously need backing up. The redundancy and repetition of points here is also an issue. Ridiculous to even have a discussion where people get all riled up in capital letters and bold font to say "WHATTTARUUUUU TALKING ABOUTTT???" I would think the, "Well, according to this source, blah blah blah, this is the way it really is" method is "just a tad" bit better.
Ditto.
No, that's a racist attitude, not a correct one.
SDW, grow up. <hr></blockquote>
Note the number of different people accused and insulted here. I didn't any where he banged on Fellowship, that would have been several pages long.
Proof positive that if you repeat something often enough, it will be true.
Nick
Which, by the way, wasn't what I was saying either SPJ. I said that it's normal for people to react that way - not for them to remain so.
Of course there are one or two personal vendettas in there but what is one to expect when you discuss highly sensitive content with a group containing religious fanatics, extreme lefties and jewish extremists?
I believe that civil discussion is the way for people to see the views of others. We must allow for the views of all the members to be heard in a civil way.
I think the way that this could be done is by allowing any topic to be discussed and manage it in a different way... For example:
Instead of locking a thread because it falls into an insult match. Ban the member who starts using rude tone for one week. I think if members knew that they would be banned for one week if they use insulting responses to threads or posts that it is not tolerated.
The problem with how it is now is that either a good thread gets locked because one heckler starts the insult party. Or even an entire forum gets locked because some of the hecklers heckle their insults through many threads.
Again to lock out the discussion (thread) or (forum) is the wrong choice.
To lock the rude member for one week every time that member chooses to respond in a rude way is the answer in my humble opinion.
I think this kind of rule with consequence is something that would encourage compliance to civil and meaningful discussions.
At the same time it would not censor out items of discussion. People could be free to discuss what they like to discuss. It is just the environment would be enlightened and remain much more civil.
I respect what the admin / mods do with their site.
God Bless,
Fellowship
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
How, exactly, does he know this?
I mean, seriously! He doesn't even know me NOW...much less 14 years ago.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I've heard of "know-it-all" types before, but this kinda takes the cake, gang.
"And my Tonka truck collection was more yellow than yours was at 8 years old..."
"pscates' post was rooted" in hardcore, months-long observation and meticulous mental note-keeping, guys.
When you're 19-years-old, you simply don't know everything you think you do. You're simply too young and haven't truly been out into the world to back up or qualify all you think you know.
It's not a personal slam or anything like that. I was quite different 14 years ago than I am today, that's all. Most people ARE.
How, exactly, is that "rooted in ignorance"? Probably one of the smartest, truest things ever said at AppleInsider.
Closing FC :eek: . It could be a good or a bad move depending on how AO will be moderated. I liked it when AO was a mix of funny and more serious discussions because each thread had its share of both. When divided the funny became silly or (for me) irrelevant chat-worthy thread in AO and the serious became "go for the man instead of the ball" threads and both places seemed mostly like deserts to me. If we could bring back the "him who only take comedy for comedy and tradegy for tradegy have not understood any of the two" feeling back to AO I´m all for it.
Lets test it. Mods: Will AO be open for thread like this classic of mine <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000575"; target="_blank">French foreign minister speaks out</a> or would it have been closed from the beginning or perhaps when frogs were introduced?
[QB
Lets test it. Mods: Will AO be open for thread like this classic of mine <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000575"; target="_blank">French foreign minister speaks out</a> or would it have been closed from the beginning or perhaps when frogs were introduced?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Boyoboy.... there sure were some gems in that thread . . . some round houses for sure <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Funny how it seemed so long ago and yet is so very relevant . . . especially regarding Bush's "strategy" of dealing with North Korea and the rest of the world's ideas about his so called "strategy"
Let's see, because they're (we're?) trying to run a decent message board and an entire forum devoted to idiotic flamewars brings the attitude of the entire board down.
Fireside Chat was a failed experiment.
moogs:
[quote]Apparently no one likes my idea for sparing AO from rampant political / religious BS.<hr></blockquote>
I have a plan, it's called The Unholy Beatdown Stick. Any misplaced FC thread that I see will be locked. People who try to start flamewars in AO will be warned by me.
This is not Fireside Chat, anyone who thinks it will be is very sorely mistaken. If it takes a sea of locks then so be it, I've been called a Nazi by the whiners in the past and it didn't bother me then, no reason to believe it will bother me in future.
Lets take a (almost) random page from the heydays (according to me) of AO. Look at
This page?.
Would more threads have been locked if this was two weeks from now?
<strong>From ShawnPatrick:
How, exactly, does he know this?
I mean, seriously! He doesn't even know me NOW...much less 14 years ago.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I've heard of "know-it-all" types before, but this kinda takes the cake, gang.
"And my Tonka truck collection was more yellow than yours was at 8 years old..."
"pscates' post was rooted" in hardcore, months-long observation and meticulous mental note-keeping, guys.
When you're 19-years-old, you simply don't know everything you think you do. You're simply too young and haven't truly been out into the world to back up or qualify all you think you know.
It's not a personal slam or anything like that. I was quite different 14 years ago than I am today, that's all. Most people ARE.
How, exactly, is that "rooted in ignorance"? Probably one of the smartest, truest things ever said at AppleInsider.
You know what, I had a paragraph or two here initally, but screw it. If you're going base your entire post on the whining about me calling your arguments "rooted in ignorance" not even in the thread to which you probably should have replied in the first place. If you're going to do that then use your Private Messages. That's what it's there for.
But if my arguments are wrong, then there's a case to be made in another perfectly good thread up right now debating, among other things, how voting Democratic can actually help your economic situation out. Maybe it sounds familiar?
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>He said there is no reason to remain uncivil. He never said he hasn't been so.
Which, by the way, wasn't what I was saying either SPJ. I said that it's normal for people to react that way - not for them to remain so.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We agree then.
<strong>I would simply say on this matter that I opened many threads over subjects that I found important. To those threads some would respond or react with personal attacks. It was far and few between that I would use a personal attack. I am not saying I never did it but rather that it was not often.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mate! When you start 5 threads a day about evil Arabs and another 5 about uncivilized Europeans without anything to back it up rather than an article about once incident, involving one guy that you copied off your own church website, or wherever, you attack millions of people at a time!
People tried to tell you that over and over again - however it never seemed to get through to you. So when people are then lost for words they get frustrated and tell you to f off. You deserved it - each and every hostile reply you have received has been a result of your hostile posting.
You did read the whole you reap what you sow part no?