goffik wrote: > I am more disappointed that the silent majority are colluding by silence.
Alright then. I'm not sure if I'm part of this "rat pack" or not, but probably am because I thought Littlestone's diatribe was entirely justified!
I'm more surprised by those that find Muddymick's aggressive posts acceptable, frankly. The bloke was a wind-up merchant and deliberately set out for such responses, and therefore got what he deserved, in my opinion.
I'll not get dragged in any further, suffice to say that I'm no longer "colluding by my silence". That's my opinion aired.
I agree, Goff, though I seldom resort to agressive name-calling myself.
I'm probably a member of the 'rat pack' too. If that means standing up for reason, kindness, helpfulness, friendliness, discussion, scientific logic, curiosity, tolerance, healthy cynicism and humour, and rejecting bigots, fanatics, provocative behaviour, and offensive nasty rule breakers and then I'm proud of it. Where do I sign?
J
x
This topic is locked | Posted by Jane 13th September 2006ce 11:51 |
John Piper (Jane, Sep 08, 2006, 19:27)- Re: John Piper (FourWinds, Sep 08, 2006, 20:15)
- Re: John Piper (Littlestone, Sep 08, 2006, 20:16)
- Re: John Piper (handofdave, Sep 08, 2006, 21:27)
- Re: John Piper (Mr Hamhead, Sep 10, 2006, 20:37)
- Half-desiccated frogs (Littlestone, Sep 11, 2006, 21:39)
- Re: Half-desiccated frogs (nigelswift, Sep 11, 2006, 22:09)
- Re: Half-desiccated frogs (TMA Ed, Sep 11, 2006, 22:14)
- Re: Half-desiccated frogs (Jane, Sep 12, 2006, 08:16)
- Re: Half-desiccated frogs (Hine, Sep 13, 2006, 10:38)
- Re: John Piper (Grendel, Sep 12, 2006, 07:06)
|
|