Reply #34: how interesting

[iverglas]

You respond to a post to *Benchley*, referring to and questioning what was said to *Benchley*, by saying, among other things:

"They don't give a shit of the human toll of their ideas. They are looking for shock value only. They care not one iota of how tragedies like this can be averted."

Given the context of your post, and given the other material in your post, e.g.:

"Some members of DU scour news articles across the internet ..."

... would I be correct in assuming that the characterization of "them" that I quoted above at least includes Benchley?

If you plan to tell me that it does not, you'll need to explain why you posted it in response to a post about what Benchley does, and referred to and questioned someone else's characterization of what Benchley does, and then offered a different characterization of what someone does.

Even if you don't plan to tell me that it does not include Benchley, you're obviously not going to be able to claim that it does not include *someone* here who "scour<s> news articles across the internet ...".

So ultimately, you seem to need to explain how allegations that DU posters "don't give a shit of the human toll of their ideas", "care not one iota of how tragedies like this can be averted" and "have absolutely no regard for those feelings", and that "their driving motivation is ... to push their anti-Democratic agenda", do not constitute personal attacks.

But listen, I'm not anal about personal attacks. My only concern is that when someone says something vile about someone else, s/he be able to substantiate the allegation. Gonna do it?

.