| Alara317 said:
it's not flaming though, it's an observation based on how you act. Look through the OP, I'm more than capable of criticizing religion appropriately and civilly. You're not being civil. By being deliberately dense in an effort to frustrate your opponent, you 'won' by making him lose his cool. I think the term for this is "ignorance Ad Nauseum." Repeated ignorance. While I agree his wording was harsh, his point was valid and your repeated failure to see the logic in his statement would drive anyone to curse. |
How do you know that? You're employing a prosecution of intent, and it's that assumption that causes the unjustified flaming (though flaming is never justified).
Flaming is simply a personal attack on a user. By that definition, there is no way that the two posts that I reported were not flaming. The first was hostile, the second was using my religious background to call me a cry-baby and a taddle-tale. The personal attacks are not warranted.
I was asking a simple question, I ask for nothing other than a civil response.
