I've read so much, I want to make sure I'm following and am not purposefully playing obtuse. I'm just asking outright with names. MM are you referring to Rob's comment on Schmoker's '6 person audience' post?

The issue is that someone took a clumsily worded but entirely inoffensive remark, that was not directed at any specific person, badly, name calling ensued and when the person who made the initial remark defended their position they were soundly blasted by a large group of people. Seemingly for having the gall to defend himself.

I made this point once before. Everyone is free to defend themselves ad nauseam, and everyone else is free to jump down everyone's throat for doing it. If you don't want to get bitch-slapped, don't be a wiseass.

Yes.

If you don't want to get bitch-slapped, don't be a wiseass.

Ah. Well, then, there goes most of my conversation.

Or most of the conversation in Natter.

Or 80% or so of the conversation in the show threads.

MM, the "clumsily worded but inoffensive remark" was on the heels of a long series of "people who don't like the kind of tv I do are stupid" posts that I, personally, found to be quite offensive. In all three show threads. So while, yes, the specific remark he brought up here may have been relatively innocuous on its own, iin context it was just one more obnoxious remark from someone who had been pissing me off all week.

So it's the "straw that broke the camel's back" argument?

I don't see how his poor timing warranted the treatment he received.

Yikes. I guess the divide is wider than I thought.

My read was that people disagreed with the characterisation (to which I'm sure unfamiliarity contributed). In my eyes (as you can tell by the fact I spoke up) one went over the line.

What continued in here was the "But no one should have been offended! How could anyone have been offended! Your feelings sure get easily bruised!"

That's what I thought got the avalanche rolling, up to and including accusing Shawn of lying.

I think it was also the "don't get your panties in a bunch" statement and the conversation that followed that got more people upset.

eta or what ita said.

I don't see how his poor timing warranted the treatment he received.

I don't think that's what she was saying. It's a legitimate point that when you make 6 obnoxious statements in a row, people react more strongly to the 7th.

I don't think that's what she was saying. It's a legitimate point that when you make 6 obnoxious statements in a row, people react more strongly to the 7th.

Thank you, Brenda -- that's what I was trying to get across.