Or be one-way.
The image I posted was "collateral" to seeing if the scripting worked. That was the purpose of the post. And "collateral" damage seems to be, by and large, acceptable to many people.
Now, was the image in poor taste? Certainly. And, it was a comment upon a public political figure. How about the following comment?
An "ad hominem" personal attack upon the poster, "political whore".
Not, "Gee, Bowser, that was inappropriate." A comment, by the way, with which I'd have to agree. Nope.
"Political whore." On the Community Board. A personal attack upon the poster of an image of a public figure. It wasn't a picture of, say, RobVG that I posted.
And, obviously, there isn't any outrage about that.
While I laud the efforts to clean up the situation around here, and you've done a helluva job starting that, really and truly, I might suggest we make them uniform if they are to be effective.
Arf
Flame » in reply to Yeah right
Oh, my! The "high road" may have a chuck-hole in it.
The whole thread (19 posts)
- Mud and Nuggets
- re: Yes
- A reminder that can't be repeated too much...
- Easy for you to say!!
- Yeah right
- Oh, my! The "high road" may have a chuck-hole in it.
- Well aren't you just Mama's little rose.
- I'm sorry, you just don't have any credibility.
- OK, "sauce for the goose" point taken.
- Well aren't you just Mama's little rose.
- Bowser, I gotta agree with Frank on this one...
- Oh, my! The "high road" may have a chuck-hole in it.
- Yeah right
