RussSchultz said:
I see. I mention that the environment here is antagonistic toward Kyle and that's why he doesn't visit, and immediately I'm a Kyle lover.
Russ, what you did was to mention that
in your opinion the atmosphere is antagonistic toward Kyle and
in your opinion that's why Kyle doesn't post. I've seen no post by Kyle to the effect of: "Gee, guys, I can't post here because some of you have hurt my feelings." That is entirely a supposition on your part and one with which I disagree, as I've stated. I do not think hurt feelings have anything to do with it.
Being against something you do doesn't mean I'm "for" the person you're doing it again.
Don't begin to presume where to lump me in, other than for a forum that is free from "gang bangs" and antagonism. I don't have to be rude or abusive toward anybody to express my difference of opinion.
But Russ when you represent that you know why Kyle isn't posting, aren't you already lumping yourself in? I do believe it was not your intent to make such a declarative statement, though, and what you actually meant to do was to theorize that in your opinion it is because of posts that in your opinion are "rude" that Kyle doesn't post. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold--but it is an opinion nonetheless as opposed to a fact that can be objectively demonstrated. There are other equally valid opinions that can be held which are of an entirely different character than your own.
Wow. That certainly encourages debate and the formation of ideas. It is a statement of the hightest and noblest ambition.
Really? It wasn't meant to be anything other than the possible sentiments of the child "Sally" that you hypothesized.
Gah. Look at how you also immediately descend into ad-hominem attacks. Do you act like this in face to face encounters, or does the anonymity of the internet provide some security blanket that lets you act like a spoiled child without fear of being beaten up? Honestly, would you be proud if your grand parents, parents or children saw how you interacted with people?
You know, knee-jerk responses which include the phrase "ad-hominem" as though it applies are really tiresome. Simply saying something is an "ad-hominem attack" does not mean that is what it is.
What I can't figure about your comments here, Russ, is why you seem completely oblivious to the fact that Kyle himself is often antagonistic toward others, and that this behavior naturally generates a return of that antagonism at times. If I throw a stone at someone should I be surprised if others throw stones at me? I don't think so--and neither should my feelings be hurt. That's the point I've tried to get across in the last couple of posts I've made on this topic as you originally raised it.