But this is a common practice in online forums. Why go to great lengths to say what has already been said well enough? Don't tell me you've never linked to an article you've felt is relevant to a discussion you've had in the past; I won't believe you.

Besides that, artifex went on to defend his stance throughout the rest of the discussion without referring to any other texts; it is clear that he has an understanding of the topic he is debating. This forgives whatever shortcut he took in raising the argument in the first place.

> Further, you offer them up offensively

That is completely your subjective response. Personally I found nothing inflammatory or offensive about that rhetorical question. It does not insult the proponents of said stance but rather the subject around which it revolves. Why do you feel offended by it?

> "Civil" does not mean "willing to permit grievous logical errors and inflammatory canards in the spirit of camaraderie." "Civil" means "don't shoot first."

In which case you are completely out of line. Your response to the article in question is so weakly constructed and your manner so abrasive that I did not think it worthy of any serious critical response when I first read it earlier today. I was seriously disappointed because I thought hubski was better than that.