I guess I don't get it -- the degree of the reaction, that is; and no, you don't have to re-quote the same post as you did when NUance expressed the same reservations.
I've been away from the board for a bit -- I lurk every now and then, but haven't posted much -- so perhaps I'm missing some context. However, judging by the fact that this is the first thread about Z and that he only has one warning point (calling LoMS a "self-righteous douchebag"), it doesn't seem that anything Z was saying was said with malicious intent.
We've said it many times before, the P&R forum gets a little heated and we let a little more slide in there. Some posters on here obviously didn't respect the Presidency for the past 8 years, but turnabout isn't fair play, and it doesn't accomplish anything. I don't know many people who are more inclined to listen when you insult their beliefs, and the capacity to listen and understand other views, even if we can not agree with them, is something that Obama sought and tried to replicate every day of his Presidency. Listening is the only way this country is going to move forward.
On that note, publicly (privately) calling someone stupid behind their back isn't the best form, in my opinion. If we're going to uphold and enforce a standard, we should at least hold ourselves to that same standard. We're supposed to be the voice of reason, to judiciously enforce board rules and be the mediators when arguments spillover and can't be resolved. That said, I think Z could've approached the topic differently and with more tact, but I don't understand the reaction to his post. Perhaps I have the benefit of not being the one attacked and perhaps I would act in a similar way if our roles were reversed.
I don't know, just throwing my $0.02 out there.
