Dr. Shades wrote:
In the past, we've split off into the Telestial Forum any comment that was sexual in nature or that cast aspersions on an individual's orientation.
Sexually-charged insults are a real low-blow (no pun intended). You could even say they're below-the-belt (no pun intended).
So, should you wish to give a standard response to Dr. Peterson in the future, could you please come up with something wittier? "_____ is a fag" is standard fare in junior high, for heaven's sake. Surely you can find something on a higher, non-sexual plane.
That's the point, Dr. Shades. Mr. Peterson bemoans the "character" of this board, but he himself posts nonsense like a "standard response", never really addresses issues, and has admitted, repeatedly, he's only here to mess around. His "standard response" is probably one of the most juvenile things I've seen a Mormon do on the Internet. Hence the funneh. It serves to highlight the ridiculous "standard response".
That aside, his form of insulting others and destroying reputations is far more vile than the simpleton insults I've used. He has to actually think about what he's saying and how he's going to twist the knife. He puts thought into it. He actually takes time to think about clever ways to put someone down, or to undermine their character. He thinks about it. How vile is that?
That's why it's better to be direct and tactless with him, because while he thinks himself clever he's just a fat bully in the Internet sandbox. It's better to just bunch the fatass in the mouth than to trade shoves.
Poor guy. Destroy someone's reputation (Dr. Quinn ring a bell?) and advance a clear fraud like Mormonism and *gasp* someone might find that offensive? *gasp!*