Not party to treaty. Got that.

This has nothing to do with my relative, though, since you bring that up, I will point out that being in error is not the same as being an idiot. This particular relative doesn't believe in coincidence much, and was looking for either confirmation or refutation of an assortment of odd pieces of testimony. He got some of that, but not from you, Professor Higgins. ["Higgins: Eliza: you're a fool. Eliza: That's not a proper answer to give me." Shaw, G.B. "Pygmalion." Act V, lines 238-39.] Nowhere in that thread did he call anyone any names. Hopefully, he is not dreadfully embarrassed by my interference, either, another consideration which I must entertain.

And, yeah, as you say, the post at issue here was insulting. I know you did it on purpose. If I seem to be picking on you unduly (twice in one week), I'm sorry. I'm trying to be more moderate in my own speech, and in the spirit of the admirable anti-ad hominem suggestion of the treaty, I pointed out that one can say an idea is wrong, or stupid, or even evil, without personally calling people cowards, mindless, morons or liars. If one consistently holds on to ideas that are wrong or stupid or evil, others can draw their own conclusions, and the argument doesn't have to resemble rock-throwing on the playground.

Also, by bringing this up to someone whose opinions I usually agree with, I have now got my card punched to go after bad manners on the other side. Equal time. :)

I will no longer try to change you. Peace?