<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozstamps:
For one poster involved there to be called on OMNI a "fascist," "homophobe," "hater," or "social communist" with no time-out consequences AFAIK for the single FT'er doing so clearly implies (to me anyway) the Moderators ENDORSE such comments. And full disclosure - I have no beef personally with that poster who posted such remarks. He and I have never crossed swords IIRC, and hardly ever posted on the same threads - I am just playing the 'Devil's Advocate' here a little.
All those comments were from one poster on the thread who is still merrily posting away on OMNI.</font>
IMO, you'd have to be more specific as to those specific instances in which ONE member was called a hater or pharmaceutic-dependent nut or @sshole or terrorist-cell subversive or whatever by another member. I can think of such instances, but the person who most uses the phrase "social communist" has NEVER, to my knowledge, crossed that line. People call Republicans, the French, Americans, our present administration, Democrats, liberals, Ann Coulter, etc. all kinds of things,
most all of which are acceptable in debating issues involving those groups.
For example, you can legitimately (IMO) say that "Republicans are haters" (not that I think that is a
legitimate statement of fact, rather it's legitimate to state that, since it's an opinion). You can NOT legitimately say that "(another member) is a hater." Same applies to other labels like "fascist" or "homophobe/homophobic". You CAN say, I feel, that another member holds hateful ideas since you are labelling abstract things - ideas - but when you do so, you are beginning to get into murky waters, and probably should "leave it at the keyboard" as Randy has said in the past.
All my $0.02.