IN RESPONSE TO THE FLOOD OF COMMENTS TO MY PREVIOUS POST RE: STEVE’S EXPLETIVES
First let me thank Jeremy for his stalwart defense of my post about the use of the GD word by Steve. He pretty much covered it. A careful reading of the post will show no evidence of categorical condemnation of Mr. Green. I fully acknowledged his right to his agnosticism re: religiously sensitive words. I simply wanted to remind the guys at BW.com that some of their financial supporters are very uncomfortable with certain sorts of crude language, particularly ones addressed in the 10 commandments.
I don’t think my comment was anything of virtue signaling any more than refraining from using the n-word is anything more than respecting how that word is hateful to persons of color. It’s a mark of respect for the beliefs of others.
In a public forum like this (and I’ve been with Right Angle since it was Trifecta), it behooves us to treat others as we would prefer to be treated. There are all sorts of words, admittedly racial for the most part that have historically been commonly used that we have stopped using out of respect for Jews, Italians, Poles, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans and other groups. It’s not a bad thing to be respectful of the beliefs of others.
While conservatives say some harsh things about the left, it’s largely been in response to shells fired at us by our Marxist fellow countrymen. Things always get a little rowdy during a war.
The GD word is one of those words that are hard for Christians to hear. We hear plenty of rough language every day, but GD and JC and their variants are particularly jarring. The use of these expletives tends to blur your message and I think that right now particularly, we need our message to be clear as a bell. And we need every friend we can get.
I’m not going to cancel my membership, but some people who can be a help to the cause would feel like they had to withdraw from this site if they had to hear these kinds of things too often. I post links to this website on my social media pages and I have lots of young kids who read my posts. We’re trying to teach them to let their yes be yes and their no be no.
Thanks to all of you who got that. I hope for those who didn’t, that this clears it up a bit.
Tom King
30 replies on “There’s cussin’ and there’s cursing.”
Some seem to have a problem that others have their own opinions and choose to voice them.
Hey Tom. I definitely get it, and you’re welcome. To be honest I winced just a bit internally when Steve said it just out of pure reaction. As you said, for Chrisitians, that and “Jesus Christ” particularly hit home.
To Steve’s credit, he did apologize immediately. However, like you, I’m not bashing him at all. I am deeply grateful for the work these three invest. Their messages are concise, consistent well delivered and relatable. Despite the current reduction in views due to restriction by the YouTube algorithms (by Bill’s account, his Firewall videos would receive 500,000 views), I believe the content will serve as a library of information for us to share and “red pill” fellow Americans going forward thereby rescuing our country from the progressive leftists who have decided to commandeer the Democrat Party.
Given that, your advice and mine to the guys to consider their audience—both direct and indirect (especially the youth)—would I think serve us all well. It’s much easier to share something…videos, movies, stories, books, etc…when you know the cursing is at a minimum (for adults and older kids) or nonexistent (for all ages). Whenever I share something, it’s a reflection of my character, and I take this into consideration when sharing a video or whatever it might be. While I consider it more when making a first impression, I like to keep things out of the gutter even with friends. Part of this is age. Part of this is maturity in my relationship with God.
Of course, people are free to do whatever they like, and I wouldn’t change that for anything. God gifted us free will.
I believe part of the interference we’re receiving is due to the fact that people are confusing the domineering left issuing commands to not say this or that with our request to hold ourselves to a higher standard. When the left says they “just want us to say this or that,” it’s signaling their desire for control via changing societal norms as they don’t stop, and the hair goes up on the back of people’s necks.
On the other hand, we’re not demanding that people change. We’re asking for change to a higher standard of behavior which we believe leads to a better society. We’re not canceling anyone. I just don’t care to hear the language everywhere I go. It’s unnecessary and unintelligent.
Furthermore, our requests are simple and straightforward. The FCC even defined the seven words not to say on television, and even without that, most people could guess them.
By contrast, the left makes up a different offense daily, and each one gives them more power to tear down our societal norms or someone’s life for saying something they didn’t even know was wrong. Nor did society discuss the subject and agree to categorize the speech as offensive.
While on that subject, let me say in no uncertain terms that I don’t believe in hate speech or even hate crimes. A crime is a crime, and with regard to speech, you should be able to say whatever you want to say. I don’t have to like it, but I don’t have to listen either. I don’t agree with the obscenity laws of old which imprisoned comedian Lenny Bruce. They violate the freedoms we’ve given by our Creator.
The Old Testament is littered with stories in Kings and Chronicles (different tellings of the same history of the twelve tribes of Israel) about the tribes backsliding into idolatry, worship of other gods and taking on the practices of their neighbors. So I’m on my guard. While not always successful, I try not to let my speech reflect my anger or frustration toward another person even online.
I don’t always succeed, but if we’re to overcome the incivility introduced and encouraged by anonymity through social media, some of those among us need to raise their game. I strive to be one of those people facilitating civil discussion and debate.
Insults are easy and often seem to flow intuitively. Hell I certainly don’t need swear words to make someone feel really small. Restraint and intelligent response involve more effort, though the responses become more habitual with surprising speed. Scott touched upon this in one Right Angle when describing his own effort at one point to eliminate his own penchant for allowing the expletives to fly.
Look I’m a big boy and certainly no snowflake. It would just be nice for people to return to considering the impact their words have on others whether they be the recipient of the message or simply within earshot. One example of someone who embraced such a higher standard was Booker T. Washington. Cleaning up behavior and speech I’m sure was part of the higher standard he imposed upon students at Tuskegee University. It does something to you. It lets you know you’re trying to be better than average and sets the tone for success. In my opinion, our whole society would be better for it. It certainly draws me closer to God when I’m trying to do right by Him.
Of course, the Lord knew this when instructing us in various ways to watch our language. Like every father dispensing advice, He knows what’s best for us.
I think part of cursing is the need for acceptance. It’s “just a curse word” after all. That’s certainly the attitude I took among my teenage friends, and we cursed like drunken sailors. Even as you get older, people question why you want to be such a Boy Scout. So I commend you on your courage to speak out.
So that’s how I see it. I’ll probably post this on a separate blog post maybe with slight modifications. It would make a great topic for the Virtue Signal produced by Bill and Zo. John McWhorter of Columbia University did a video on the evolution of cursing which I have yet to watch. Unfortunately, I don’t have the title, but I believe it to be recent. He’s an anti-woke mob guy.
It all makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Was Gable’s, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” really necessary?
Hard to say.
God bless.
Free will?
Reject your god.
To communicate effectively, you want to communicate in a way that doesn’t harm or blur the message you want to deliver. That’s not self-righteousness. That’s being the best you can be as a good communicator.
That’s correct. So if you don’t like how or what someone speaks, just say that. As in “I don’t like when people swear/use word XXXXX”.
If instead of that you invoke “other Christians” and commandments written in the Bible, then you shift the message to a different plane.
https://youtu.be/OKFbB_kqpDI?t=64
Sometimes Pat, it helps to explain why you have bothered to make a comment so we can see the other person’s side. If instead you jump right to condemning the commenter for not doing it the way you would have him do it, then you’ve put a poison pill into the discussion. I get that you don’t want anyone to say you shouldn’t curse or at least use some of your favorite curse words or criticize from a Christian perspective. From your string of comments what I hear is:
It’s interesting that you object to me asking if Steve might drop a couple of words in posts that kids and devout Christians might read and yet you feel it’s okay to tell me how I should have said it. Mine was an ask for consideration and an explanation of why there was a problem for me and mine. Yours was a simple cammand – “Thou shalt say “I don’t like when people sear/use word xxxxx.”
I suspect if I’d said exactly that, we’d still be having this conversation. What I like about conservatives and the more classical liberals is their willingness to listen and respond politely without cursing, name-calling, mind-reading, false accusations and logic fallacies.
There are always some who want to shift the message to a different plane – usually a plane where their weapons work most effectively and yours are neutralized because of the tacit assumptions operative on that plane (often where no mention of faith, religion, God or politeness are allowed for instance).
I leave it to you to deliver a crushing reply. It will be unanswered. You seem to need the last word. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.
Respectfully,
Tom
This is absolutely rich. No self awareness at all.
Did you read the comments there beyond the one that you agree with?
As long as you keep misrepresenting the 10 commandments, why do you expect people treat you as one actually care about God or his message instead of chasing some other agenda?
Those who read the evangels probably noticed a pattern: the pharisee approaches Jesus with questions on how to mince words the right way. And he always send them away to look for the MESSAGE instead.
Yet Jesus never uttered the words, “God damn!” It would sound all wrong if he did. I did not approach Jesus here. I’m not a Pharisee. As Christians go, I’m pretty easy-going. I do, however, know my fellow Christians. I merely suggested to Steve Green that while his use of that word five times loudly might have had shock value, it also might cause a significant number of his listeners discomfort in a way that blurred the point he was making. A family member of mine grew up with her father using that word constantly. She found that hearing it triggered the use of that word in her own speech, something she did not wish to do. So she, like other Christians who grew up in verbally abusive situations, try to avoid being around that sort of language, to the point of disassociating themselves from those who, in essence, claim the power to command God to curse someone. Jesus had a lot to say about that (see the woman caught in adultery).
I know what the 3rd commandment says and all about its a harsh threat to not forgive those who violate that command. And I don’t believe he meant using some curse words. I think those are pretty easily forgiven and forgotten. This commandment was speaking to folk like the Pharisees who did evil in God’s name. The commandment is more about claiming to speak or act for God while doing evil. There will be a lot of naughty evangelists who embezzled from their own churches to build mansions, pools and private jets who will be in big trouble on Judgment day for violating #3.
I don’t expect anyone to treat me in any way other than the way they choose. You’re doing the classic leftist mind-reading trick of claiming to know what I think and expect. You assign the faults to me that you can easily condemn and thereby make yourself a little unearned moral superiority.
If we can’t talk without doing that, we’re little better than AOC, the squad, Pelosi and the virtue signaling media. I in know way demanded that you or Steve do anything other than what you want to do. I expressed a thought that perhaps Steve and Bill didn’t consider.
If, however, your curse words, particularly those you are so vehemently defending, are so important to you that those of us who are uncomfortable listening to them withdraw ourselves, then all I was saying is that you might want to consider whether those words are an effective tool for self-expression, especially if they drive away our sainted grandmothers and our impressionable kids. That’s all I said. It was advice not a command. I have no authority to issue any commandments. That’s God’s prerogative. I see that 3rd command as a two-level advisory to his Children. God knows how many times I’ve told my own to watch their language. I don’t want them to shock their relations by letting a crudity slip at the Thanksgiving table.
Just sayin’
Tom King
Now I’m seriously confused. Up in the starter you write about “certain sorts of crude language, particularly ones addressed in the 10 commandments.” then here admit that you know very well that the commandments do not talk about the kind of language you refer to at all.
And then go ahead blaming people who notice the discrepancy. I have no idea what is inside of your head. I only read what you write. And point ut that parts of it are in contradiction. In important parts, that are colsely realted to the core of your statement.
Meanwhile you also state you are aware of the principle of the keeping it simple and to the truth.
Anyway, I did my best to direct your attention, from here it’s your task what to do with it.
By claiming those who use the phrase “God damn” and its variants have the intent to, “in essence, claim the power to command God to curse someone” (your words), you are guilty of what you accuse.
Sometimes, given the diversity of the audience on a site such as this one, we just gotta let this stuff slide without projecting a seemingly-self-righteous objections. That said, it is important for all of us on this site to remember that we have a First Amendment that codifies protections of our freedom of speech not a protection from speech.
As I’ve commented elsewhere, it is waaaaay past time for all of us to toughen up and stop being crippled by every offense.
Never said anyone had the intent to claim the power to command God. I said “in essence” since that is the way it comes across to many listener. Never did I claim any power and authority. My training is in communications.I made a suggestion as to how we might avoid alienating our members with more tender feelings. It’s all well and good to tell people to “toughen up” and “let it slide”, but not everyone is as impervious to the holier-than-thou wing of conservatism which is the negative mirror of the holier-thann-thou wing of liberalism.
Making a suggestion about language, pointing out some problems with certain styles of communication, and reminding us that we are not all as morally superior as those who jump on any suggestion, policy position or moral concern that they disagree with, shouldn’t invoke this much wrath. I made a suggestion to Steve that his use of GD might do what we Christian’s call “hurting your witness.” I issued no commands, but was accused of that and more.
The tendency to pound each other if we deviate what some of us conservatives believe is the true belief, is a major part of the reason conservatives are increasingly becoming an obnoxious outnumbered minority. Instead of working together we do what a theology professor at Andrews University suggested in a song he wrote.
The song was called, “Shoot your own side first!”
It was a huge hit among the theology students.
Tom
Your original statement, “in essence, claim the power to command God to curse someone”, projects/implies an intent upon another person. If you cannot understand that, then we are definitely at an impasse.
Generally, I would agree, but your original post belabored what I believe to be your intended message to the point of sounding overly-pious and preachy, and all of the resulting “wrath” is an obvious consequence.
My youngest daughter once stated matter-of-factly, “I don’t like to be told what to do.” It was funny at the time for various reasons, but it often reminds me of a general human trait. You put out a long rant (that is what many would call both of your postings) about the shocking language of another individual, and you are gonna get blowback. To expect anything else is naive.
Not only is this not possible, it isn’t even reasonable. Let them slink off to their safe spaces. Creating more such spaces is a road to nowhere good.
I thought we are actively fighting the idea of “safe spaces”.
If anything, we should help people leave them behind instead of reinforcing their walls and submit to the bullies who want to achieve their “safe” by ruling others.
If “conservative” stands for preserving past wisdom, how come “stick and stones” that was used to cure the “tender feelings” problem is just dropped? In the time we need it most? Significant part of the recent episode was about that too.
And getting back ho Christians: in the old days they were facing lions in the coliseum. Or got nailed to the cross. Literally. As in the old meaning of literally. And by now they evolved to feint from hearing some words? If so, no wonder we have the world in the state as we see it.
No one is asking for a safe space. You’re literally reading that into what was said so you can take offense.
Hm, talking about “reading into”, I did not take offense. Why would I? I tried to put through some message, that in such situatiation has like 1% chance of success, obviously rolled the other 99, and didn’t even wonder.
And the direct quote is right there:
“I made a suggestion as to how we might avoid alienating our members with more tender feelings.” plus all the other lengthy text on the subject in 2 separate topics.
Tom obviously is NOT sharing your wiew on need for shelter otherwise he would not try to create one for the supposedly so vulnerable members.
Well maybe “take offense” was the wrong choice of words, which sort of registered when I wrote it hurriedly. My mistake. A thousand apologies. I was rushed.
You did object, though, to the idea that Bill, Scott and Steve restrict the use of one word and inflated that to mean that Tom is now advocating conservatives restrict their speech in all manners and customs while fighting the culture wars. He’s not advocating for that, but the misunderstanding is partially due to the phrase “tender sensibilities.”
In my opinion, this is also a wrong choice of words. I wouldn’t consider the desire to honor our Lord by not desecrating His name something arising from tender sensibilities. It originates out of respect for our beliefs, and while calls for courtesy from others due to religious beliefs can be abused (as I believe Islamists sometimes do citing political correctness), I find it hard to believe that anyone can make the case that asking for our fearless leaders here to refrain from using “Goddamn” abuses the ability to request such courtesies in the name of religion. Not to mention such courtesy will benefit the community by enabling the sharing of the content more freely.
Did you read the threads? Or just jumped on the few last sentences?
What I object was misrepresentation of commandments.
That in later comment Tom even confirmed as not a mistake, he pretty well, still does.
I also don’t like people talking in others’ name without showing any evidence those others asked them.
I especially don;t like someone posing as following the correct and simple speak principle, yet refusing to just speak in his own name.
I would not bother to write a single comment if the statement was as much as “Steve, please stop saying God as it hurts MY feelings.”
The 2 threads went lightyears beyond that.
I think I see your point. You prefer that Tom King would have originally spoken on his own behalf as opposed to claiming to represent all Christians?
I didn’t get the impression he was. At least how I read it, Tom was giving his opinion on how he and his wife reacted and was suggesting to our fearless leaders that keeping “God damn it” or “Jesus Christ” out of the lexicon would eliminate the risk of turning off Christians while making the materials easier to share with a wider audience including younger people.
Some people took this as a demand rather than a request to censor speech as our beloved leftists of cancel culture are prone to do. While I understand the need to be on the lookout for these imposed restrictions of free speech, Tom’s request was not that.
Woven into Tom’s plea is a call for a higher standard. Many Christians including myself are fed up with the race to the bottom presented by secular society including Hollywood in the name of “progress” by the same tolerant people who can’t bear the sight of a nativity scene in front of city hall. A higher standard such as the one followed by Booker T. Washington in founding, filling and graduating students from Tuskegee University on a former Alabama plantation in the segregated South after the Civil War would be refreshing.
So I’ll go a step further than Tom. It’s easy to be like everyone else. Let’s do the small things that make the Whittleverse a cut above the rest. In my opinion, we all already do a great job of keeping the discussions civil. I’m not sure that respectfully refraining from the use of two phrases is that much more to ask if it keeps our Christian brethren feeling warm and fuzzy.
There’s a whole English language out there, and unlike the authoritarian left, Tom was requesting rather than demanding. So am I. Also unlike the authoritarian left, I’m not seeking this as a means of power or fulfillment. Rather, it’s a way to honor my Savior.
Respectfully submitted.
Nobody needs a safe space. At all. Show me where that’s being requested. Is your desire to swear using “God damn” that inveterate that you can’t make a simple accommodation in the company of Christians?
It’s not all about you.
Do whatever you like. Doesn’t mean we need to respect your behavior.
I, as a supporter of billwhittle.com find the nannying of my language objectionable. I reject it. Demonstrations of passive aggressive emotional immaturity are not valid support for the argument that I must watch my language. Everyone has words that make them uncomfortable. So what?
I wish to be treated as a sovereign individual who gets to use whatever words suit in the context of the moment. I wish to be free from the imposition of some other sovereign adults alleged virtue.
And just who are you that you presume yourself to speak for
Paraphrasing Jessie Stone, “You can fire me but you can’t tell me what to do.”
If such people exist, and if they are as emotionally friable as you allege, then there is no help for them anyway. I’m not responsible for anyone else’s comfort here. And neither are you.
You are a sovereign individual indeed. You get to use whatever words you wish to use wherever you wish to use them. Your hearers, however, are free to ignore what you are saying if they find the use of curse words like that to be more than they want to tolerate.
We’ve got Hollywood, the music industry, the television industry and the news media pouring down obscenity down from on high. They are free to do that. I just think it limits their effectiveness. Some of the most profitable entertainment in history has been that which is mildest in its speech. No one in Star Wars said the GD word. Wasn’t needed and with kids in the theater it would have been a distraction.
You are, of course, free to say whatever naughty words make you happy and feel superior to those of more tender sensibilities. In this you remind me of our leftist, progressive friends who see virtue in exploiting nudity, cursing, pornography, and violence in the public square to bolster their unearned twisted version of moral superiority.
I think it’s kind of sad that we have folks on the right using the same tactics as those on the left and protesting that it’s somehow virtuous to do so. The difference I find between most conservatives and too many liberals is that conservatives tend to treat others as they would want to be treated (this includes being kind to those of our sensitive brethren and sisters. Liberals (noveau-liberals, not classical liberals you understand) have a tendency to treat others the way they think they ought to be treated, especially if it allows them to feel superior to the weaker sort of human being.
I fear some of our conservative friends have backed so far to the right that they’ve circumnavigated the globe and are standing back to back against leftists who have done the same thing so that it’s hard to tell the difference between the two groups anymore.
Just sayin’
Tom King
This is a strawman response. You want me to “feel superior” so you can feel superior. That is called projection.
I see it this way, it is yourself who resembles the emotionally tender leftists who are so easily injured by words–“sticks and stones ring a bell”?–presume themselves so threatened that THEY lecture and make demands of others and would dictate the words others should be permitted to use. That is also projection.
It is also ad hominem to label your opponent with some derogatory so to lessen the validity of their position and elevate your own agenda. That is dishonest.
So thinks you. I call that identity politics, which itself is part of the leftist mindset. The “No true Scotsman [conservative]” argument. Your circumnavigation doesn’t make you an authority. It is an anecdote.
BTW, you have no idea what this Christ said, because he may never have existed and the bible is a collection of myth and stories. Characters in stories say whatever fits the narrative. It could be asserted that this alleged Christ said many things. The huge majority of which would never have been written down.
I’m also not the one who down votes your posts. I’m not a coward that way. I use words.
Oh please. Not a strawman at all. Your feelings of superiority are evident with the following statement…”Demonstrations of passive aggressive emotional immaturity are not valid support for the argument that I must watch my language.” You assume that we are emotionally immature and need a safe space. We don’t.
ASKING for a little decorum and etiquette is light years from being a snowflake SJW who DEMANDS that you change your behavior to satisfy their virtue-signaling.
Furthermore, Tom’s correct. Your embracing or condoning of nudity, cursing, pornography and violence in the public square aligns you with arrogant elites who see themselves as “liberated” and therefore more “progressive” than those backward religious nuts. You might not see that, but it does, and given your attitude toward Christ and the Bible without so much as even examining the evidence makes it hard for me to believe that you don’t look down upon Christians with the same arrogance.
You sure aren’t showing us any respect by supporting a simple request to Bill, Steve and Scott which doesn’t affect you in the least.
Which brings me to Tom’s other point. What he’s saying is that some conservatives or centrists have become so wrapped up in the idea that they should be able to do whatever they like that they forget about helping others, which absolutely does not make you a conservative. You can consider that an ad hominem attack if you like, but it’s true and does resemble the selfishness of a virtue-signaling leftist willing to destroy others damn the consequences as long as they appear virtuous to their Twitter friends.
As far as the Bible being a collection of myth and stories, absolutely not. We have an embarrassing amount of manuscript evidence written by eyewitnesses or direct associates of such. In fact, we can reproduce the New Testament simply from the citations by the early church fathers.
So yes, we do know what Christ said, and He is referenced extrabiblically more than any other ancient figure. Not to mention the Bible has an incredible track record for historical accuracy when it comes to things like cities and kings.
Christ also lays claim to the title of Creator of the universe and author of life, two things over which the vaunted “science” hasn’t the foggiest. It punts the Big Bang and DNA to the ever welcoming, “we’ll figure it out someday.” Just like they’ll find the “missing link” someday, at least when they’re not busy grinding down pelvic bones as they did with Lucy since it didn’t match their preconceived notions about her ability to walk upright.
And no that’s not a “God of the gaps” argument. It’s taking the historical evidence of the claims of Chrst as author of life and the universe and marrying it with the design in nature. For instance, if the force of gravity were off just one iota, we wouldn’t be here. That’s one of about two dozen scientific constants similarly fine-tuned to produce the universe we have. It’s no surprise that giants like Sir Isaac Newton expected to find God in nature. This whole “science explains everything” is recent.
The Case for Christ, Strobel
The Case for a Creator, Strobel
The Privileged Planet
Stephen Meyer
Daniel Wallace
J. Warner Wallace
Paul Maier
The evidence is there if you care to look.
Atheism is an easy sell. It requires no discipline, and indulges the worst of human nature whenever convenient. Tyrants such as the left absolutely adore it, and there’s nothing within it that compels an atheist (or an agnostic) to do anything benefiting another person. Its ultimate center is “I need, therefore…”
I’m offended by prayer in school, therefore…
I’m offended by a Nativity display, therefore…
I’m offended by a park bench with a religious inscription, therefore…
I’m offended by Christmas music at the mall, therefore…
I’m offended when a cashier wishes someone a “Merry Christmas,” therefore…
I’m offended when someone asks Bill, Steve and Scott to watch their language when doing videos so as not to insult my Creator, therefore I must complain even though it doesn’t really affect me.
Heaven forfend we ask the Whittle community to elevate to a higher standard and thus appeal to a larger audience, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT.
Atheists / agnostics can be the ultimate snowflakes. At least the left is upfront about their tyranny. Some of you masquerade as tolerant, centrist free thinkers while ignoring simple requests for courtesy costing you nothing.
Meanwhile, we get abortion and divorce on demand shoved down society’s throat as progress. Like those haven’t had any consequences or costs over the last 50 years whatsoever.
Yawn.
Why do you think my response to the author is about YOU?
Preaching begins—>[scroll].
When did goddamn become a naughty word? There are no naughty words. There are just words.
It’s a “naughty word” solely because the culture has deemed it so as a result of tradition and conditioning. You are correct; there are just words. The only caveat I see is what do individuals intend to accomplish with the words, and one’s intent is beyond any other’s ability to know fully.
All of this back-and-forth discussion is nothing but the result of one individual publicly-voicing his being offended, and this is nothing but a distraction from the larger problems we are facing in society. Leave it to a bunch of overly-pious individuals projecting their disdain upon the rest. That said, I find the following statement absurd given that the original posts were directed at more than Bill, Scott and Steve:
I suggest we just walk away while saying, “Bah!” to such foolhardy distractions.
I have re-read what I wrote and cannot find this in my posts.
Sorry. My bad. I should have referenced the source.
It wasn’t you. I snipped it from Jeremy Amsden’s reply to you on May 18, 2021 3:03 PM. In fact, you just replied to it above.