I wasn't even thinking about you. You don't have to justify yourself, you provided a relevant view of the actual content which was offered up for discussion/debate. You're free to express your views, irrelevant of whether anyone agrees or disagrees. It's not necessary that we all agree on everything anyway. It's only necessary that we all agree that we should all be free.
Mac and some others, however, have a historic tendency to show up purposefully dropping grenades in threads where specific sources they don't like are cited. And with specific intent.
They're not really interested in discussing the dialogue in the topical content itself. They just wanna see it disappeared because their problem is with who is asking the questions or presenting a given argument. They attack sources and people through targeted and collective ad-hom. Not the content itself. They've got a pretty good track record in accomplishing that disappearing act, too, normally operating as a wrecking ball in a small group in those given threads. After all, it do take a village. Or so they say.
Which is really the only reason I said anything about it, honestly. Heck, somebody's gotta say something about it, else it'll just continue unchallenged. They get comfortable. They get confident. It eventually becomes both expected and acceptable collectively. Ultimately, the shenanigans have the potential to set a precedent that certain sources they don't wanna see cited are frowned upon as a matter of policy. And if you give em an inch in order to achieve that endeavor, they'll take a mile every single time. That kind of behavior is human nature, unfortunately. Man is, after all, a mixture of good and evil.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
