In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:49:34 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:35:49 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:10:03 -0500, Happy John
wrote:

He, perhaps, should have stressed the behavior -
which was, and is, very assholish.

===

And perhaps recommended that the perpatrators join assaholics
anonymous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdgVA...ipcontrinter=1

The only thing is we are sliding back to where it was, in that anyone
who doesn't agree with a certain poster's stance on things such as
sports, religion, politics, etc. is deemed an "asshole". Being civil and
pussy-footing around a certain poster for fear of ****ing him off are
two different things. If it were anyone else calling someone an asshole,
they surely would have gotten a reprimand by others.

Old news. The behavior was assholish. No one individual was called an asshole.

Any further continuance of your behavior (by pursuing the matter ad nauseam) would also be assholish
behavior.

This is very reminiscent of Kevin's behavior. Don't you agree?

So, are you saying that if the subject includes more than one person,
because it's not an individual, they can then be called assholes and
it's acceptable? YOU seem to be "pursuing the matter ad nauseam", does
that make your behavior assholish?

Yes. Continuance of this discussion with you would be assholish to others in the group.

Bye.

And you acting like you are above everyone else would be as well.