For example? If I call your ideas or your conclusions "stupid-ass," I am NOT calling you stupid ass... I am suggesting that your argument is baseless or lacking facts or lacking logic or does NOT follow from the information that is known.
So I am NOT sure what you mean about me NOT leading by example? I rarely engage in personal attacks of other posters, besides suggesting some of their ideas are fucked (or some other explicative). ONLY sometimes I get pissed off a little bit more than may be necessary at someone pursuing a bunch of silly ass ideas and/or seeming to want to argue, just for the sake of argument.
You may be correct that from time to time I go too far in my comments, and I could be a little more polite. That is possible. However, a problem with having a forum without rules is that it becomes contagious to engage in this kind of conduct (or potentially a disadvantage if a poster refrains from it) or even irresistibly tempting to throw out a few extra explicative, here and there.
You know the expression that it may NOT be very useful to bring a knife to a gun fight. Accordingly, the rule of the community sometimes affects conduct.
Ultimately, I believe for the most part I am fairly restraint in the area of personal attacks that I make or my stating conclusions without some basis. I am pretty minimal with FUD-like spreading... so I would like to hear what you believe from you assessment of the situation that I do or say that is NOT leading by example?
What I mean is calling my conclusions "stupid-ass" doesn't serve much purpose but to antagonize, especially when I haven't drawn any real conclusions (other than the joke one that I gave you the little wink on and everything). You can word that a lot better and still get your point across.
Yes, it is possible that I used words that were stronger than necessary to make my point; however, without really being able to put my finger on the situation, exactly, I am getting the sense that you are being quite disingenuous with your pursuit to engage me in various topics, including this one. So maybe my language was a bit stronger than it needed to be - even though I was attempting to be descriptive of my frustration that you seemed to have been purposefully missing various points attempting to describe matters in ways other than what they were. In the end, I think my response was appropriate and within a context in which the response seems to fit.
I honestly am not bothered by a little bit of antagonizing. Then again, I'm not the one who wants stricter moderation.
I am NOT bothered by some antagonism, too, b/c I expect some of this to take place whether forums are strict or not there is going to be antagonism b/c we are dealing with quasi-anonymous posts.
Yes, I stated my opinion that the forum would be better with more policing and/or elimination of trolls. However, I do NOT really expect it to change anytime soon b/c there seems to be considerable tolerance for trolls in this forum. I will deal with the antagonism, but I remain unafraid to express my preference for better moderation.