I disagree. Someone who posts in a rude and inflammatory matter, is (at least when making that post), a rude and inflammatory person. I know this because if someone called any one of my posts, over my 5+ years here, rude and inflammatory I would take it very personally.

It's not like the discussion moved from another thread here. The post was posted here.

Yes - the procedure is "deal with it in-thread," so that's what I'm doing.

And FWIW, Laga is a woman.

Since we're talking about procedure and etiquette, why can't I find the link to the Cheesebutt. I've looked in Site Etiquette and in FAQ. Anyone know where it is?

I know this because if someone called any one of my posts, over my 5+ years here, rude and inflammatory I would take it very personally.

Maybe this attitude -- and I don't mean that you, Wolfram, are responsible for the larger problem; I'm using your statement as what I feel is a good, clear example -- is part of the larger problem with the perceived hurt feelings around the proliferation/anti-proliferation debate.

Maybe some people are too quick to interpret criticism of their position on something as criticism of them as a person.

I'm so sorry Jessica. I'm sorry that I offended anyone. I am very sorry that I chose my words poorly.

I'm not trying to pick on you either, Steph, but I think you've demonstrated why we sometimes pretend these issues are less important than they are.

Maybe this attitude -- and I don't mean that you, Wolfram, are responsible for the larger problem; I'm using your statement as what I feel is a good, clear example -- is part of the larger problem with the perceived hurt feelings around the proliferation/anti-proliferation debate.

Why do we keep calling them the "perceived" hurt feelings? There have definitely been hurt feelings around the proliferation debate, and you're right, it's precisely because people take what they post, and what people respond to their posts, personally.

Maybe some people are too quick to interpret criticism of their position on something as criticism of them as a person.

Also there's a huge difference between criticizing a position (i.e. calling it wronger than a wrong thing), and characterizing a post (i.e. calling it rude or inflammatory). And I don't think I'm splitting hairs.

I'm not trying to pick on you either, Steph,

It's cool; I can take it. (I would smiley emoticon here if I used emoticons.) t edit I don't feel like you're picking on me, so no worries!

Why do we keep calling them the "perceived" hurt feelings?

I used that term because one of -- I think -- Laga's posts from the other day is stuck in my head, where she said "it seems like there are a lot of hurt feelings."

But maybe I should have used the term "perceived insults" instead.

Also there's a huge difference between criticizing a position (i.e. calling it wronger than a wrong thing), and characterizing a post (i.e. calling it rude or inflammatory). And I don't think I'm splitting hairs.

That distinction is true, but I still don't think that calling a post rude or inflammatory means that the person is being called rude or inflammatory.

Cheesebutt.

t /Back to playing catch-up

I think we all need to take Meyer's Briggs tests or something because we seem to have a feeling/thinking divide!

(I would smiley emoticon here if I used emoticons)

Ha, ditto!

But maybe I should have used the term "perceived insults" instead.

Yeah, now I get what you meant, and you're right.