Quote:
RF wrote:
What has ease got to do with it? You might think it is more fun to not ban him, but to jeer at his beliefs.
Which would be an unsupported opinion on your part. Such unsupported assumptions seem to be becoming a fairly common basis for your posts.
No...it's a fact. I didn't assume anything except a possibility.
Quote:
Quote:
The ease of this action or that is hardly the final word on what the action will be.
No, since we have a guideline for the operation of this board which is much more complex than ease. I cannot see what the statement of the obvious and previously discussed goals accomplishes in this post.
I can't see how you think that disjointed response addresses my statement. Again, it's a fact that people don't choose their actions by considering only the relative ease of the choices available.
Quote:
Quote:
The "no personal attacks" game played by childish rules might hold a lot of attraction...an attraction that overrides mere consideration of ease.
You may think it childish, and if you care to be more "adult" and undertake a personal attack or two you are free to try your hand.
Since I think it is childish, how would I be showing maturity by playing at it?
Quote:
Quote:
It might even be that the concept of free speech is deemed important enough to support, and so that overrides a desire to ban him regardless of the ease of that action.
That would be the point of the prior statements.
Then reasonably, it might override the fear of appearing hypocritical.
Quote:
Quote:
But none of that speaks to the hypocracy I was talking about.
This seems to be another of the unsupported opinions, but since you have not shown the ability to explain what you consider to be hypocrisy...
Well Wayne...if what I consider to be hypocrisy hasn't been explained...how do you figure you were addressing it?
Quote:
....as opposed to seemingly agree with what is not by repeating my statements it would be anyone's guess as to what you are trying to imply.
Say what? Are
you trying to say something? Do you deliberately go for the effect of "vague"?