h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No no no no no...not you. I meant that Peta would have been out of context if she hadn't included it.

Yeeps, everyone's so touchy these days...

I was going to say that. I think the whole hoo-haa about this joke is pathetic and these people need to lighten up. But in the light of recent events I decided not to.
But now I have anyway. But toned it down a lot

I have just reread this thread again and I see nothing rascist in it all. An argument yes and some serious over reacting but nothing rascist at all.
And a round of applause from me to Stragbasher.

Stragbasher, will you please stop speaking on behalf of all non-americans, and start speaking for yourself? I like to consider myself pretty easy-going, but people who think they've got the right to tell me what I should think is one thing I find *extremely* offensive.

Thank you!

"There are many people here on h2g2 who are far, far cleverer than their spelling might appear.."

I agree.

"...and Orwell, though a superb writer, was not a linguist. In his defence, however, there was not a great deal of rigorous research completed in this area in his time."

This is quite true. Orwell did not have research on the study of things like the the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: "the structure of a language constrains the thinking of people using that language". 1984 is not a relevant reference to an arguement of constricted thinking.

Sorry,

I didn't realise I was speaking on behalf of anyone else and I certainly didn't mean to.

I'm a bit disappointed that the people who started this thread haven't replied yet and I suppose I'm going to have to apologise for the gratuitously offensive joke with which I ended my last posting. It was intended to goad and encourage a bit of debate as to what actually constitutes "offensive".

I don't consider myself a christian and yet the staff of H2G2 feel free to hang christian iconography on my home page over their festival of christmas. I wrote to Mark Moxon on this issue, amongst others:

"Well thanks. So suddenly I am presumed to accept the superstitions which are prevalent half a world away am I? Will I also have to deal with Ganesh on Diwali, magic sigils every full moon, swastikas on Buddha's birthday, and a blessed month during Ramadan when we observe the Islamic prohibition on representative art? And if so are you aware that 25 December is the birthday of the Zoroastran god Mithras? Why no sun symbol on my homepage? Or does the Essenian monastery at Qumran somehow deserve special treatment?"

Now I know that this was over-reaction, and I don't seriously expect a change in guide practises, but it illustrates the problem that what one person finds perfectly reasonable may be deeply offensive to another. Peta says to avoid posting anything that anyone might find offensive, but that's simply unworkable. If I go to one of the christian dogma pages here at the guide and state that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" am I being offensive, or stating a view to which I am entitled? It all depends on your point of view, not on any universal definition of who is right and who isn't.

Almost all humour is at someone's expense.Human social evolution is a process of interaction, and competition between ideas. Silencing people for fear of offending someone is not in accordance with the principles of freedom of expression and democracy.

In the 50's and 60's the USA persecuted any of it's own citizens suspected of "un-american" activities and beliefs. "Free" individuals were told what it was OK for them to think by a power elite that viewed it's own values to be absolute and right. In part the world's attitudes to the USA stem from that presumptious and unreasoning era, and it's only natural that people poke fun at it.

Trying to silence people who express their views through satire has been deemed illegal by courts in the USA, and other countries. You can give me a hard time over the joke I put here because was simply coarse, rude, and contained little to redeem it. But to give the Loony a hard time for poking fun is the first step in making the guide the butt of the e-world's jokes, making H2G2 into the internet equivalent of the USA. Can it Peta, and go to a cocktail party or something. Don't you have better things to do than give people a hard time over the content of their postings? There has been an awful lot of discussion about the content of Approved entries but you don't seem to be making much effort to address yourself to that issue.

Now lock me out.

The above comments should not be considered to be directed at anyone in particular.

They're just "friendly fire"

"Can it Peta, and go to a cocktail party or something. Don't you have better things to do than give people a hard time over the content of their postings? There has been an awful lot of discussion about the content of Approved entries but you don't seem to be making much effort to address yourself to that issue.

Now lock me out."

Yep. That seems pretty general. You're going to make a lot of friends with that one. Good idea there, sparky.

"Can it Peta" is not supposed to be directed at anyone?

You've piqued my interest. Explain.

Stragbasher, consider yourself speaking on my behalf!

Mike A: Thanks for the support.

Spartus: Yes, you're right and I humbly admit the flaw in my assertion. But I couldn't think of any other way of getting the 'friendly fire' jibe in there. Still trying to get a meaningful reaction from the originators of this discussion.

Krissy Lee: I'm not trying to make friends. We can't all be best chums and live a life of love and snuggles unless we all agree on everything. I don't agree with you that the USA should be spared any kind of critical examination, and feel that jokes are the best way to make social comment without fisticuffs. But since you've chosen the fisticuffs route......

Would you like to reply to any of the points that I addressed to you earlier? I will gladly explain myself and/or enter into debate with anyone - but you have yet to apologise for, or clarify, your comments that I have indicated I found offensive.

There has, so far, been little of substance offered by either you or Amanda in this debate. If you're not prepared to defend your views then why do you persist in annoying people by airing them?

*Prays to the great Christian Gingerbread Man Emoticon of H2G2*

Oh, sorry! You caught me in a rare moment of reverence...

Stragbasher, sorry to disappoint you in my not replying to your post, but I honestly think you explained *why* I didn't better than I ever could: "(it) was simply coarse, rude, and contained little to redeem it". I was raised of the opinion that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Perhaps that seems old-fashioned to some (or most) of you, but as you REALLY don't know anything about me...there you go. You're welcome.

Oh, and I also don't enjoy goading very much. It smacks of desperation and ad Hominem attack, which hardly ever makes for a fair debate. Since a debate seems to be what everyone wants on this subject.

You're welcome again.

But here's my reply to one issue (with many sub-issues) you really seem to be fixated with: Democracy.

I'll reply with a few questions, which only seems appropriate as you tend to beg them quite often... If it is proper for someone to express whatever he or she would like online or off (free speech, right?), why do you consider it improper for me to state my feelings in response to what that person said? I mean, you said "there's no point giving someone a hard time when they make fun of national characteristics or stereotypes", but I think I'm right in assessing that you do feel there IS a point in stereotyping people. Wouldn't that mean that you are stifling my right to free expression as well?

Wow, it really gets tricky doesn't it? I'm waiting anxiously for you to explain that for me.

*files nails*

Anyway, until the day comes when you guys get lucky and rise up a coup against TDV, there are the rules nicely provided by Peta. Pretty simple, I thought. Many, many other people seem to have no difficulty abiding by them, but then I suppose there will always be people who try really hard to be the exception at all times. And look where it's taking you! Amazing.

Here's something - If you don't like the way H2G2 is run, why are you still here? Hmmm.

If the simple rule "do unto others" (which most people learned by grade school) makes H2G2 the "butt of the e-world's jokes, making H2G2 into the Internet equivalent of the USA", then excuse me. I need to run off and get tickets for an arse-side seat.

"Peta says to avoid posting anything that anyone might find offensive, but that's simply unworkable."

No. It's so, so, so, so simple if you think of it as it's meant. If, before you post it, you suspect that it may cause offense, don't post it. The idea is not to *deliberately* offend people. To *avoid* offending people.

To be *nice.*

It's not hard.

If there had been more real discussion here and less deliberate rudeness for the sake of raising rabble, things could have been so easy. I've been thinking about this since last night (when I was first introduced to Stragbasher, and deeply hurt and offended by a long post full of mean and often wildly untrue comments) and I haven't come up with even one reason why it would be advisable or even desirable to be rude on purpose. Is this why—

"I'm a bit disappointed that the people who started this thread haven't replied yet..."

—to make two people post? Or was it just the one, because it appears that the other had already posted when you said this. So that's why? You thought she wasn't paying sufficient attention to all the people who jumped all over her simple complaint to tell her she's wrong to have spoken up and she has no sense of humor?

Seriously?

After you yourself found offense in Christmas decorations on the site because you're not Christian? After you wrote an angry letter to the editors about that, you saw fit to flay the intentions of someone with so similar (albeit somewhat reversed) a grievance?

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand.

That's us Americans for you. We's dumb like rocks.

I realise that this is completely off the original subject, so it's perfectly all right if no one replies to explain it to me. But I had to ask.

Parting shot?

Oh so you're leaving, now that you've put the world to rights, are you?

If you choose not to reply to my coarse, rude, joke then well done. You have done something smart and recognised a cheap jibe for what it was. And I'll take this opportunity to apologise to you for it. I'm sorry, OK?

But you haven't addressed any of the other points that I made in that posting. You have simply hidden behind a veneer of smug superiority. So I'll ask you again:

If American comedians can make fun of american stereotypes then why can't anyone else? I assume that your problem lies with the homour and not with the substance of the Loony's comments because you seem smart enough to take issue with him on points of fact. I made the point twice in my first posting and now I'm asking you a third time whether Americans have some right to be funny that is denied the rest of us.

The role of satire is widely accepted in society, and in law, as providing social commentary. You chose to ignore that point and focus on my reference to "stereotypes". Who is satire supposed to be aimed at? If there exists a type of person whose behaviour makes them suitable for humorous observation then humour will be directed at them. That's why there are so many "redneck" jokes told by american comedians. I do not defend the practise of associating individuals with stereotypes, (I'm a Brit in America, remember?) but the stereotypes exist and I don't mind people joking about cricket, tea, mad Kings or Independence.

You didn't reply to my observations about your apparent attitude to the British monarchy. All you had to say was that you didn't understand the system and no offence meant, or some similar platitude, but you're too busy finding excuses not to explain your unwarranted aggression toward anybody with a sense of humour.

Democracy: The USA appears, to the rest of the world, to be continually promoting itself as the most democratic "free" country on earth. My use of the word was an attempt to speak to you in language I thought you might understand. What I was trying to say was that the Loony IS making his stand for what he believes - through homour. Now will you please respond??

Or do you find politics too boring? I asked you that as well. People all over the world are affected by what happens in your country and it seems rather unfair that when we try to express our opinions we are shouted down by people who, by their own admission, aren't interested.

I also mentioned that the internet is dominated by American companies and individuals. As H2G2 is British- based and originates in a series of books written by a British author is it any surprise that non-americans tend to congregate here and resist the tide?

The original books were very funny, cynical, and contained an awful lot of social comment. If you find it unacceptable that people here want to continue that tradition then I suggest that you should be the one looking for another site.

There, I think that that's answered your question, and reminded you of a few of the others you were going to answer. Is there anything else you wanted to ask me? You did say you had "a few questions" but you only asked one.

Or did you mean the stupid comment about finding another site? I like it here, not least because it gives me the opportunity to see people like you make fools of themselves.

I won't leave a parting shot, but I will say au revoir with this:

Given that this site is accessible to anybody on this diverse planet, many of whom are going to have all kinds of different views, how exactly do we avoid this kind of thing happening in the future? Almost any opinion is going to be offensive to somebody else, if you look hard enough.

You claimed the right to express your dissatisfaction with the Loony, and some found it offensive while others supported you. You questioned his fitness to fulfil the post of ACE, which is not your decision to make, but you consider that acceptable even though others think you overstepped the mark there.

Where is the line to be drawn? And who is to make the decision? Or shall we all just limit ourselves to talking about the weather for fear of offending any one?

Looks like we were both typing away at the same moment there KM, and you've given me food for thought.

Can I just clarify myself a bit?

The first posting in this discussion was aimed at a friend of mine and was, I thought, grossly unfair. To say that the Loony isn't fit to be an ace because he likes a laugh is just daft. Amanda writes like someone who has very clear ideas and doesn't really have much interest in what anyone else thinks unless it gives her an opportunity to shoot them down.

Unfortunately I react in much the same way and it seems that along the way I've said some things that you consider to be "mean and often wildly untrue". I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention and if you want to take issue with me over specific points I'll try and clarify myself - either here or at my homepage, the load time here is getting a bit long and it is someone else's page.

As for being rude on purpose, it's not something I generally do but I don't worry about upsetting people who I think are being unreasonable. I overstepped the mark with 'the joke' and apologised not long afterwards. I find it interesting though that those criticised in my first posting hid behind their outraged sensibilities rather than answer any of the other points I made. A process that continues, I might add.

I'm not aware that you've posted anything I could take offence at, so I don't want you to feel like a target, but I do disagree with your assertion that we can all be nice all the time. We can, and should, have the best intentions towards one another and not seek to tread on anybody's toes. But I believe that in a diverse world people in different circumstances believe different things and that what one person finds perfactly reasonable may be considered offensive by others. Take the repeated references to drinking alcohol as an example. Many people, of all faiths, avoid booze and some might find the constant assumption that we're all drunkards a bit of a drag.

Should they feel free to post to people's homepages and tell them they shouldn't be aces? Or should they just accept that other people want to kill their brain cells, and laugh at them? I know what I would prefer, and when people tease me to the point that it gets upsetting I find that a quiet word works better than a rant.

I don't think Amanda's original posting was a 'simple complaint', in fact I think she had probably been bottling it up for a while and overstepped the mark. An apology or an explanation would be in order, without withdrawing the complaint.

As for the christian thing. Yes you're right, but only to a point. I wrote to the editors in private, two months ago, making what I felt was a valid point. Mark has been in contact over another issue, although it took a lot of prodding, but hasn't yet found the time to say "thanks for the input, we'll take it under consideration", which is why I am now prepared to air the matter in public.

Amanda chose to tear the Loony off a strip in public, and question his personal qualities rather than his policies. There's a huge difference. Also, had she been a little more conciliatory after he replied then I doubt that I would have got involved.

If the editors, or Peta, want to have a go at me about anything I've said here I'm prepared to defend the substance of it, even if I have to concede that I need to be more tactful.

Hope this clarifies but don't hesitate to get in touch if there's anything that I've left confused.

SB

PS: Dumb like rocks? My girlfriend is American. I live in America. Many of my friends are American. In fact last week I physically met up with someone I first met here at H2G2. I don't think any of them would appreciate you claiming that 'dumb' is part of the national character, and I wouldn't agree with you.

Let’s try and sum this thread up.

It started with Amanda and a few of her sisterhood of friends accusing me of posting Anti-America rubbish. They went on to take a swipe at Britain and New Zealand.

This annoyed some of my friends, male and female - people who come from various places, including the United States. What really upset these people are the grossly inaccurate statements posted as fact. Some of my friends have invited me to stay in their homes if I ever visit America. Not the sort of gesture one would expect to be offered to a rabid anti-American.

A side point. Why are no males posting in support of the sisterhood?

Amanda accused me of behaviour unworthy of an ACE. Wrong again. Some of my closest American friends on h2g2 were first met when I was fulfilling my ACE duties. Generalisations, as Amanda points out in her initial unsubstantiated outburst at the top of this forum, are always wrong.

Krissy Lee makes an interesting point when she mentions she is moving to London and marrying an adorable British man. Does this mean American men are not adorable? Does he dislike everything American except Krissy Lee so won’t move to America to be with his beloved? We are not given this information.

Trying to lighten things up I posted a fun letter. Thankfully most people seem to have enjoyed it. Alas some people took it as pro-Britain when it is actually pro-America. This is one of the drawbacks of forum posting – different people read things differently. What is annoying to one person is hilarious to the next. And so it should be. No one (hopefully) believes life is easy.

Lil posted one of the wisest things on this thread.

At some point during the filming of the denouement, the town’s political leaders, in honour of the actor, held a banquet. A prayer preceded dinner: "Oh God," intoned the minister, "Give us Americans the ability to laugh at ourselves without losing sense of our essential greatness."

I then posted a heart-felt apology for any alleged bad-taste postings. Some people accepted the apology. Some didn’t. As said above, people read things differently. It just goes to prove humans are uniquely human.

The thread then carried comments and opinion from various people - some admitted knowing me, some didn’t know me from Jack. The second group of people used generalisations. As we learnt earlier from Amanda – generalisations are always wrong.

Kristina Marie released some doves. Nice try and thank-you.

Alas by this time the original point had been lost. People had entrenched positions. I quote Amanda. “Apparently, H2G2 rules don't apply to some people, especially those who have had nothing but negative things to say about the site from day one”.

Who are these people? Is she saying h2g2 plays favourites? Is she implying the h2g2 staff is incompetent? Is it a generalisation? My opinion is that statements of this ilk are unworthy of an ACE.

At this stage the conciliatory Lil retired from the debate. Her reward? This from Amanda. “You set a great example just now, but it wasn't your responsibility to do so.” What is Amanda saying? Thanks but no thanks. You don’t agree with me so I am not going to listen. Surely this is an unworthy position for an ACE to hold.

Another perspective, with origins in a British upbringing, came from Stragbasher, a researcher who has spent the last six months in the States and is enjoying life immensely while interacting with Americans from all walks of life.

Beeline added a female Brits opinion.

Unsurprisingly, and I guess it only took this long because of the weekend break, Peta entered the fray. She reminded everyone of the “rules”. As the person whose privacy was invaded – the thread was posted by Amanda on my h2g2 page – and who has been defamed, harassed and abused, I welcome Peta’s intervention.

Since I started writing this summery a few other postings have arrived in the forum. Most, I suggest, could come under the heading of summing up. I don’t believe many of these new posts have taken the debate much further. If I were wrong on this point then I would be more than pleased to respond to real, not generalised, concerns.

I repeat the apology posted very early in this forum. I love America. I stand to attention every time I hear The Star Spangled Banner playing. Old Glory will be flying from my house roof when NZ becomes the 51st State. I am distressed to think I have upset anyone. It was not intentional. I am a fool.

To stop further misunderstandings I will try to keep my joke posting to the realm of solo parents of which, occasionally, I am one. I reserve my right to tease the Sons of the Sheepstealers (Aussies). They wouldn’t have it any other way.

Thank you for listening.

Grahame/Loonytunes

>That wasn't my intention and if you want to take issue with me over specific points I'll try and clarify myself - either here or at my homepage, the load time here is getting a bit long and it is someone else's page.

Not really an issue, since he (the focus of the controversy, really) hasn't bothered to post anything on the issue in two days.

>As for being rude on purpose, it's not something I generally do but I don't worry about upsetting people who I think are being unreasonable. I overstepped the mark with 'the joke' and apologised not long afterwards. I find it interesting though that those criticised in my first posting hid behind their outraged sensibilities rather than answer any of the other points I made. A process that continues, I might add.

Considering the number of times you've said something offensive, then "taken it back" and apologized for it, it's easy to come to the conclusion that it's deliberate. Not an accusation, an observation.

>I'm not aware that you've posted anything I could take offence at, so I don't want you to feel like a target, but I do disagree with your assertion that we can all be nice all the time. We can, and should, have the best intentions towards one another and not seek to tread on anybody's toes. But I believe that in a diverse world people in different circumstances believe different things and that what one person finds perfactly reasonable may be considered offensive by others. Take the repeated references to drinking alcohol as an example. Many people, of all faiths, avoid booze and some might find the constant assumption that we're all drunkards a bit of a drag.

Right, so you're asserting that people have the right to be bigots? It certainly reads that way.

>I don't think Amanda's original posting was a 'simple complaint', in fact I think she had probably been bottling it up for a while and overstepped the mark. An apology or an explanation would be in order, without withdrawing the complaint.

Yes, I rather believe she had been bottling it up. An apology for drawing to another's attention, albeit heatedly, that what they'd been saying could conceivably construed as offensive seems an odd idea.

>If the editors, or Peta, want to have a go at me about anything I've said here I'm prepared to defend the substance of it, even if I have to concede that I need to be more tactful.

Given the amount of time you've spent crafting your replies to this thread, I think an extra moment or two of tact-checking doesn't seem an unreasonable demand. I have seen other threads in the past where you acknowledge freely that you're sometimes deficient in that department, so I'd think that it'd be par for the course for you by now.

I mean, unless you're doing it intentionally. Once again, a conclusion based on past performance, not an accusation.

Oh, and as for KM's comment, "That's us Americans for you. We's dumb like rocks." Let me help you out in comprehension, because your extended stay in the States, as well as prolonged exposure to its residents, has likely deprived you of the sense: that was sarcasm. No, really.

Well said.

It illustrates the fact that few of us have successfully seen anything from the opposite point of view in these past two days, and that we're all guilty of lots of things, and that it's gone quite far enough. If the issue is to be taken up again I honestly hope that it turns out better.

There' just one thing left—something more specific, as that's what everyone's crying out for—that I really, really want to suggest to Stragbasher, and it is this.

Imagine, if you will, Bob Saget performing Chris Rock's stand-up act.

Imagine Chris Rock doing Jackie Mason's.

Now, in fairness, these people are American, and they perform mostly to Americans and maybe if a nice Protestant took a thousand jabs at the Catholic in a show in Ireland, or if a Russian comic did an entire set of off-color jokes about the Queen in England, the reaction would be milder than what I imagine it would. If so, then forget it, I'm just lots of wrong. But if I'm not totally off the mark, then it's really nothing to do with being American. There's just some stuff that only certain people can get away with saying, and that goes for everyone everywhere, and it doesn't mean we can't try to be nice all the time on a single blue website when there's a whole world in which to argue and controvert.

Not a parting shot at all, Stragbasher. I was making a figurative statement, but apparently not well enough for you to have picked up on. You know how us Americans is with irony.

Now, before you attempt to drag or defame me down to a more comfortable level for you, let me make one thing clear. My purpose in this thread is not to get into a wrestling match with you. I think I have answered many different statements on my position regarding this topic, whenever they've come up, and I've *attempted* to stay as on-topic as possible. To the point in which it's become quite redundant, in fact.

How many more ways would you like me to state "I am offended" before you're capable of grasping it? Just curious.

See, this is the part where it gets kinda hazy for me. These "questions" you seem so keen for me to answer...HAD you, in fact, asked me them before? I mean, with the intent of getting a response? 'Cause I see an awful lot of question marks in your posts, but you seem to be doing a pretty good job of answering them for me. So you know, this is a peachy arrangement. You make up my mind for me and I just sit back and do *important* things...like clean the litter box, or something.

Honestly man. Do you expect me to try and explain to you my position on this AGAIN when you've so vehemently decided that you are right? When both of us so obviously think we're right, respectively? What is the point? If you want to take that as "backing down", have it your way. This is a stalemate, and wasting any further energy on you is exactly that - a waste.

You like to pick fights, and many people consider that bullish behavior. You ask people for their opinions on subjects, only to tell them how wrong you think they are without keeping an open mind of any sort. You deem yourself to be an expert on British-American relations because you happen to be living here in the States (hopefully you have a work permit, otherwise thanks for raising my taxes), but I think you are bound to be surprised time and time again on what TRUE human relations is all about. People will continue to surprise you.

You wanted me to answer a "question" put to me about my attitude toward the British Monarchy (gee, I hope I typed that okay) and politics in general. Did I miss something? I'm very proud of your and Loony's patriotism, and I think I made that clear (at least to Loony). I only brought it up in the first place because politics always seems to be used as a crutch in arguments like this. If I made any insulting comments toward your system of government, I apologize. Or rather, *would* have apologized at the appropriate time, if you hadn't used that example as a mechanism to prove the point that you were getting at, i.e. "Stragbasher can say Amanda is offensive, too!" Wow, that was soooo inventive.

You wonder what right American comedians have to joke about the American condition, and find it hypocritical that I don't see it the same way. First of all, let me point out the MAJOR fallacy you commit time and time again: I am not "every American", stop stereotyping me and lumping me in with all the "other" Americans who might find that brand of humour funny, please. Secondly, the ORIGINAL topic was in relation to this statement: "And just so the Americans don't get homesick on this Brit site here's a bit of redneck humour - or is it a true story?" Sometimes, when you renege on a joke before you've even told it, the undertones of seriousness peek through. If the same line had been said by a comedian, even an AMERICAN comedian, the truth still would have poked through, as it does often in that brand of comedy, and I would still be offended.

Did that answer your question? Was it appropriate enough for you? Should I expect you to come back and tell me how wrong that answer was? 'Cause I got a busy schedule, and I'm just trying to plan in advance.

Hey, you’re the one trying to get a rise out of me as a substitute for a debate tactic, admit it. I’m just letting you know it’s not going to work.

So here we are again, at the stalemate. I think it's wrong and hurtful to turn the world into one big "Pollock joke", and you think I'm naive and anti-democratic because I'm controlling your free will to do so.

So why is this argument maintained then? To what greater purpose? Are we going to hash this out tonight, have everyone agree and move on with no hard feelings? It would be lovely, but not bloody likely. And I am just as guilty of that as anyone else involved in this, so before you try to twist THAT around to your benefit please make sure you note it. Meaning I have helped to keep this argument going by not backing down on what I believe to be true, the same goes for your "side". (Since this is such a gang battle!) None of us is going to admit defeat, but the really sad thing is that there isn't anything to win here, really.

We are all very intelligent, that much can be said, and I'm proud to be a part of a community with a "high standard of living", as it were. And the fact that I disagree with the things some people say is as much my right as it is that of yours to defend why you said it in the first place. And my right to defend my position is as much a right as it was for the thing to be said in the first place (apparently), etc. This can go on and on and on.

That is my standpoint, Stragbasher. Take it as you will, which I'm sure, for you, will not be a problem.

Incidentally, please don't feel at all guilty (if you have felt any inclination to) for having offended me. It was I who was out of line in taking offense that was intended to offend someone else.

That the particular someone else is a dear friend will only serve to needlessly complicate as it's got nothing to do with anything at the moment, so I won't mention it.

For all those from whom I have taken personal offense in this thread, I sincerely apologise. I should learn to mind my business.