Lorien Lowe wrote:
The prosecution can rest.
This is exactly the condesending tone that people have been referring to, Mike. The only times you responded thoughtfully and politely was when you were responding to a man.
Trial by jury involves a selection process. It's not exactly a self nomination thing.
I don't really have a problem with Mike S, myself. He's stirring, but if you stir, and shtuff comes up, don't blame the stirrer. It just means there's some shtuff in the water.. which means you have to blame those swimming in it.
He's been picking on me, but it feels friendly, like a dojomate who has decided that I'm "worth it" testing what I've got. I am in no way offended, in fact, I am sort of flattered and amused.
There is a diff between malicious endangerment, and raising the bar. At this point, we're just at the latter, and more politely and tolerantly than others who have entered the fray, in terms of Mike Sigman.
Challenging questions are OK. If a concept cannot be challenged, and must be protected like a glass bubble, it's not much good in the real world. Something that can be kicked around, evolved and improved, is. It's called critical thinking, and while it's not exactly in vogue in the US any more, 49% of us still practice it.
No more ad hominem.
This isn't a presidential election, and this crowd is no idiot electorate.
We can actually talk about issues, here.
Otherwise, it's just another Passive Aggressive Grudgematch (TM).
(female, BTW, despite hubby's signature... )