Your argument was on such shaky ground that I figured you'd see it for yourself.
I am sorry to hear that you denied someone the right to express themselves.
That's your comment to him.
His comment back to you was: I am sorry to hear that you believe someone has the right to threaten to kill a group of people!
Neither one of those is a personal attack, IMO. And if they were (which I don't think think they are), he did no worse than you did.
But for the sake of argument, I want to show you that he didn't do anything worse to you than you did to him.
He originally stated that he was sued for denying someone the right to express themselves. He didn't say that he denied someone that "right". Do you see the difference? It's subtle, but if you look close enough, it's undeniably there. "Sued for" is not the same thing as "did". At least in this country.
His reply looks to me like commentary about your feeling it was wrong for him to have "denied" someone their "right to free speech". The intimation that I'm picking up on is that he "denied" someone their "right" to threaten to kill, and that your arguments, including that one post, seem to support the "right" to say anything anywhere.
Personally, I thought it pretty deft handling of a post that would've incited lots of people to flame someone in response.
With that said, your welcome's getting a bit thin. Care to go talk about stocks somewhere? I mean, look at the site's name. It's a stock discussion site.
Bob
