I think its just a case of form. No reason to use adjectives to negatively describe a person. Once one restrains themselves from using negative adjectives -- like "pumper" -- I find that their reasoning typically facilitates better exchanges and critical analysis.
For instance, while you suggested Linda's speech in San Francisco basically mimicked her Oppenheimer presentation; I, on the other hand, would take issue with that -- even allowing for your caveat. She also gave statistics regarding the compassionate use program Overall Survival and Progression Free Survival, she told us "glimpses" on Direct results were likely in the near term as well as the spring, summer and fall; she told us NWBO would start to draw upon the German Grant in the coming week(s) and she gave us the overall response rate for DCVAX-L in trials and compassionate use program (in addition to the German financial contribution/DCVAX prostate silence you already mentioned). I would certainly not use an adjective to describe you simply because you have a different take on this review.
I'm certain if you combed my posts you'd find that I violated this rule (aka. no negative adjectives) as well.
Regardless, compounding that by calling one "too sensitive," (another negative adjective for some), while apologizing, implies that you now view someone as an "overly sensitive pumper." These adjectives are unnecessary and tend to label and globalize a person who probably would not be described this way if he disappeared from this board in the manner John's friend did….may he rest in peace.
Negative adjectives may go by the wayside for the person distributing them, but they tend to cheapen the debate at hand -- and stick in the recipient's craw.
I highly suggest Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers. I certainly do not mean that their debate tactics in any way resemble anyone on this board. I simply found it interesting and topical. IMHO
