"E, I don't think I will ever find a rational explanation for that impression, and I am giving up trying."
Let me try. Late in the day, you employed some "buster" comments. These were at a time when there was so little left to the discussion that you and Laz were refering to caliper measurements of differences. It was not too far back that you had been joshing with a couple of posters about the stalking accusations. So, I would say, over time and given the additional circumstances you have revised you view of the matter to a somewhat more serious and critical view.
The "buster" comments were a breath of fresh air. Many of us had seen our nuetral and rational comments twisted to be something else along time ago; and so had taken a more cautious and critical tone in our contributions to the discussion. As we became adherents of the "buster character" position we found that we had kholt to contend with. Too which, CH would weigh in with new information and confidence.
It was discouraging and confusing. I used the word "bolstering" as I saw the thing entangeled with another frequent flyer here, which complicated the matter further. Perhaps enabling would be a more exact word. However, the relationship you conveyed regarding CH was quite similar. Without it I don't think we would have seen much of the "buster" character over the last couple of weeks. CH made statements that he intended to rebuild his reputation as a gentleman. He didn't and there were only a couple of posters who didn't encourage him in that direction.
Until you detected a personal slight from CH (sitting on your coat tails), which was pretty minor, you really appeared to be sheltering him under a wing.
I agree with all of your arguments about using overstatement terms. It definitely hurts the position of the person using the term. If you are in a checker game and your opponent slices your right arm off, the judges may disqualify you for calling the guy a b*%#$rd. After all we don't know the circumstances of the gladiator's birth, do we. |
