While one point of view could assume it was 'selective', another, equally valid, could state it was a perfectly innocent assumption that the thread did not want to be burdened with an absurd number of 'follow-up' posts. The PM you site was the first I sent to you...in the hours immediately following your unbelievable reaction. The language is completely and deservedly reflective of the your actions. I stand by and am proud of every single word in that message.
And once again you accuse me of ulterior motives and deceptive behavior in omitting this message...where not one iota of such was present. Conversely, your lack of directly expressed apology for your obnoxious behavior, and your perpetuation of this nefarious-intent myth, shows in crystal clarity you haven't learned a damn thing from this whole experience.
And insofar as your advocation of comity ('a friendly social atmosphere : social harmony'): from one who has been at the direct receiving end of this your attitude, comity is certainly NOT the environment fostered by your oversight of this forum, especially as exemplified by your actions on my 'behalf' during the past week. In fact, if it weren't for folks like Harold Engstrom, Mike McFarland, John Metcalf, J.D. Kelley and others, the idea of 'comity' would be the least likely description of the pervasive attitude of this thread.
Speaking of comity...
To repeat the implication from my earlier post: for those who are comfortable with the idea, my designated charitable organization is The Atheism Web. For those who are uncomfortable with the idea, my designated charity is Save the Children.
In case you weren't aware of the concept, Michael, that's what is known as a compromise ('something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things') |
