>Thomas,
>
>Thank you for the considered explanation of your point of view. it has some merit and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. I do agree with some of what you say but not all :)
>
>In respect of Rick's position - I dont know what his motivations are. One can either (a) take his stated position as the truth or (b) assume those are lies and some other personal agenda is at hand. Who is to know the truth whether a or b is the case? When left with an unknowable in human affairs my default stance is to accept a person at face-value and not work off assumptions - until proven otherwise. It's how I would like to be treated if what I say/do is ambiguous.
>
>In respect of Rick or anyone else on this forum: if I dont like what someone says, or how they say it, I just ignore them and don't read their posts. I have hardly ever used the twit-filter - dont need it as it is not hard to skip posts I have no interest in. Rick is a bit preachy and it does gets a bit tiresome but, like I said, I can just take it or leave it and move on.
>
>I dont think we need to resort to personal insults and rudeness. The argument that the receiver is at fault in such situations and needs to "grow a thicker skin" is BS. If someone is rude or insulting then, for me, they're history because I can't be bothered with it - life's too short.
>
>Cheers!

I agree with you Jos, and your take is very close to mine.