by This has been a disappointing morning of reading, although not surprising.
There has been a distinct difference in the style of replies.
Postings that have been reasoned, and not in the least antagonistic, have
attracted the kind of vitriolic response, that tends to reflect more about
the poster than the person being posted to.
Does any one here understand the distinction between attacking what a person
may say, and attacking that person on a personal level?
Once personal attacks are resorted to, the poster loses all credibility.
It would be helpful if people would own their statements, that is, speak in
the singular, rather than presenting opinion as fact.
Given the history of humanity, a little unlikely, granted.
This used to be newsgroup that was a pleasure to visit. I hope it may be
again.
And no I don't agree that this is the fault of a single person, however
convenient a reply that is. There are more than one perpetuating self
importance, and it isn't a pretty sight.
If you feel the need to attack; what is it exactly that you are defending?
Your attacks, and the nature of these attacks say more about you. Each of
you.
In the act of diminishing another, we diminish ourselves.
Kaffie