As I've mentioned before, I'm okay with someone having a different opinion, but when those opinions start getting thrown around like they're objective facts, it's worth pushing back a little.
But how that's done can (often) be done better. Not with vitreal and snark that is sure-fire to turn a conversation sour. So please stop that, I only tend to ask once, then timed suspensions follow if words don't work out. It's possible to disagree without going sour - Lead by example.
In this case I'm referring to:
Yeah, you're right. They probably moved on. I imagine it takes a *special* kind of person to keep throwing a fit for two years straight.
Well, this seems rather one sided. Why, if you're going to publicly shame someone for their posting style, are you not publicly shaming both sides of the conversation? If this were a one-off kind of thing, I'd tend to ignore it, but it's really not. It seems to me that, if you agree with someone's stated position, you're ok with however they go about presenting it, or, at the very least, you don't publicly call them out. In so far as I'm concerned, this could all be done privately, instead of trying to publicly humiliate someone that may be saying something you disagree with. Whether this is your intent or not, this is the perception, and the reason that some posters feel absolutely free to continue to "go on the attack", because nothing they say has any consequence.
