Tracy, all I did was start a provocative, but essentially innocent chat about certain behavior in a tv-show. As to my full surprise lots of people reacted as stung by a bee, apparently only because I wrote 'Americans' rather than 'Some Americans'. That was a silly reaction IMO. I have the right to generalize to a certain extend and that right I defend. It's no problem for me if someone here wants to make general statements about the Dutch (for example). In such cases it's my job to tell enough details about the real situation.

Suppose someone here writes: "The Dutch smoke pot all day". In such a case I won't attack that person by replying that this is an insulting generalization. Instead, I'll come with details and I'll also address the real issue, the moral side of the story.

The tone in my messages was one of someone who defends his right to provoke. Ayaan Hirsi Ali would say "The Right to Offend". Because whether or not it is offending or insulting is often mainly in the head of the other person. I have made clear to all that I was not intending to insult. If people decide that it was an insult no matter, then we have a different level of understanding of the concept of insulting.

Hope this explanation helped.

>While I was very surprised at the tone of his messages today, personally, I don't see that message as extreme enough to warrant banning. If it is, there are many messages here on the UT that use much stronger language and I'm afraid quite a few would be banned (not to mention the messages with profanity in them)...