Still, I don't see your point. Why would one be offended when something is said about a prominent member of a group one belongs to?

I can only speak for myself here.

You may remember my long dispute with DougD years ago. What ticked me off is his assertion that certain purely religious concepts apply to all humans. Since IMO they don't apply to me, it followed that I'm not human. IOW, my stand was that he's just plainly wrong there, and I engaged in that long dispute to try to show him wrong.

Even though I was offended by a few points he made, not for a moment did it occur to me to complain to anybody.

I could have been offended by things which were written about my country, but then I always thought, what if they were right? Why shoot the messenger? And, if I tried to just shut them off, who would then tell them they might be wrong? Who would be their messenger?

I think the whole point of the rules here is not to make the communication PC, it's to protect communication itself.

>Perhaps, or maybe they just need to be clarified.
>
>>Renoir, I understood the UT rules to be political attacks directed against another UT member. Perhaps I misunderstood the rules...
>>
>>
>>>See message #951885 and related messages in the thread.
>>>
>>>Please address this.