>>What do I think of the other words on that page? I posted my comments towards the bottom:
>>
>>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~SuggestionsForTheHentzenwerkeWebsite
>
>Yes, but do you consider the other words to be vile invective? I don't. Steven is only feeding a debate, in the hope that it will be constructive in the end.

No, I don't consider the other words to be vile invective. Is everything Steve wrote vile invective? No. Can some of it be vile invective? Yes. You asked for some examples and I have given you some.

>>There are also these words that I find to be not-so-nice:
>>
>>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~TheEndOfFoxTalkAndOtherThings
>
>>Whil reminds me somewhat of a guy who just doesn't "get" it, and doesn't even know how to quit in a business-savvy way.
>>
>>What do you think of that? So now we have some concrete examples of probably what Whil was writing about.
>
>Having read the whole text, not solely your out-of-context text, IMO, all within acceptible debate rules. Besides, this page was published after Whil's accusation.

Out of context? I provided a link so everyone could read it the entire post. Also, within that context, Steve was still criticizing Whil's web site. That line was just the worst of it. That's not out of context. Out of context would be if Steve had mostly praise for Whil's web site, but I chose a line that was slightly critical.

>And I fully agree with Steven's last (but not least) words: Please note that you'll find many places in this wiki where Whil's yeoman service is both noted and acknowledged. The issue, Jim, is this: with leadership comes some measure of responsibility, and the way Whil has chosen to abdicate is neither sensible nor commendable.

It's a little ironic to see Steven criticizing someone for not showing some measure of responsibility. He was booted from the UT some time ago for showing a lack of it.

Unless I am mistaken, you still have not answered my question about Steve calling Whil's website "shi**y"? That is within acceptable debate standards in your opinion.

>>>'Nonsense' should be reacted upon, as we do here a lot. At least in the beginning. At least, according to me.
>>
>>That is your choice, as it is Whil's, and as it is mine.
>
>No, not so much his free choice as you suggest. He has used the UT to post his strong opinions. That's fine, but since it's a forum, he should also react to replies, all according to 'acceptible debate rules' (if you have a better term, please tell me).

I really don't know where that logic is coming from. It's just way off base for you to write that someone should have to respond to any post in this forum, especially after they have made it clear they are tired of the accusations that have been made against them.

>>Now who is twisting words? I have not called Steven Black a villian. I have not categorized him as "vile invective". I completely disagree with what he has written, don't care for the way he wrote it, and see his words as being "vile invective. While I see the words he posted as "vile invective", I do not categorize him as a villian or as "vile invective".
>
>Sorry where I twisted your words. You have not called Steven a villain. But you did categorize someone calling Whil's website "shi**y" as vile invective. That someone was Steven, so you categorize Steven as vile invective.

No, let's be clear. I am categorizing his words in that instance as vile invective. I made that clear in my previous post I believe by putting "words" in bold print. I am not categorizing him as vile invective. Please be very careful in what you accuse me of.

>
>>Now, what do you think of the words he wrote?
>
>All within acceptible debate rules. Hey, here on the UT we all should be accustomed to criticism, don't you think? You called me paranoia. I reacted in a hopefully appropriate manner. I did not categorize you/your words as vile invective, did I ?!

Criticism is fine and welcomed, but this is similar to Johann Cruyff retiring and fans booing him because he won't play for them anymore :-).

>
>>Speaking of more "vile invective", perhaps you are aware of these words, posted by JVP in Message#876502:
>>
>>From personal experience, I can tell you Whil is all about Whil. No question that you will get the impression "he cares". But in the end, it is about about business. To a large degree, you can't argue with that - but you do have to question the methods. The whole VFP/Linux issue gives you a clue just how much of a master manipulator he is.
>
>Well, that's JVP. Although I even regard all those words as within acceptible debate rules.

Then I am very confused. How is it wrong for Whil to categorize attacks, and let's be clear, these are very personal attacks, not just criticism, as vile invective? How is it that what Steven and JVP wrote are withing acceptable debate rules, but what Whil wrote isn't?