Whatever happened to the old maxim; Reply to the post not the poster? You have now stated twice that your response was at least partly based on your previous impression of him, gleaned from earlier posts.Originally Posted by Fozzy
It is often difficult to critique a post, based on prior assumptions of what you think of the poster. I am as guilty of this as anyone but, I believe it is relevant where a poster is consistently silly or disruptive in the face of fairly overwhelming condemnation, or lack of support. (As in Flukes case).
It appears Tod is quite capable of standing his ground and does not need me to defend his position. I just think it slightly odd that a few would hound him based on his previous, when my belief is, his contributions on immigration have been helpful and freely given.
By all means attack the post if you feel strongly about it, but don't turn your vitriol on the poster because his style irks you.