I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Again, I don't have the final say on that matter, but IMO your are incorrect. IMO both are clearly violations of FT TOS.

Yes, me and millions of others, I would imagine (including many Muslims who have described their own religion using those very words).

It's one thing to use a term that is descriptive in nature (as in your example), orr perhaps even as a pejorative. It's an entirely different thing to use a term in direct response to and as a comment on/personal attack against another poster (as in my example).

So I guess maybe I've been mistaken. Are the "TOS" different from the "FAQ" that are provided as a link (directly to the right of "MyFlyerTalk") on the top of every page? If there are other terms of service, could someone please provide a link to them? I've been working under the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the TOS are covered as part of the FAQ.

With that in mind, I did a search of the FAQ for "troll" and "flame". The only match that was found was for "flame" and is as follows:

From this, I can only conclude that since "troll" isn't even mentioned, then trolling is not specifically prohibited. The reference to "flame" refers to and objective of having a flame-free community. Thus, I can conclude that "flaming" is discouraged. However, there is no mention of being a "flame-bait-free" community.

So, it seems to me that one is free to bait, but if someone were to take that bait and respond with a flame, the response is what would trigger a TOS violation.

Do we have yet another example of feigned indignation and imagined personal attacks where there are none?

Some people get confused easily and others want to confuse the issue to further their agenda. Either way, not all are blinded by a veil.

And are you using it as a perjorative most of the time as viewed in the opinion of some?

Irrelevant. I'm not directing it, in the form of a veiled personal attack, att any specific FTer.

As the great Ronald Reagan once said, "Well, there you go again!". Clearly your reply ("some people") was directed not at "some people" but at me personally. Excellent example of the tactica that I mentioned.

I would be happy to answer this though I see that others have offered up their own thoughts as well.

In the context you have displayed I personally do not think they represent a 'personal attack.' Rather they represent a general opinion about a particular topic. And usually when these sort of generalization comments are made, they aren't even considered defensible. For instance, it's fairly difficult to believe that a member posting "I think TSA Screeners are thugs" would want that sole comment in their profile.

I've seen this type of "personal attack" defense as well. It most often seems to come from one of our members who runs a travel Website for bidding, a la Priceline. Many members here often criticize this persons business practices, etc and I often get an email, including a letter from this person's lawyer (yes, believe it) complaining how I allow members to violate the personal attack policy in regard to this member. I have on many more than one occasion repeated that in my opinion, members were not attacking this member as a member, but rather as an owner of a public Web site. It had nothing to do with this member's posts or opinions on FlyerTalk, rather their actions in the performance of their responsibilities as an owner of that Web site. Well, to this day, I don't think they get that part.

A personal attack, and even a veiled attack are when a member deliberately goes out of their way to make issue with the opinion or POV of another member in a way that is personal. Hard to define, sometimes even harder to point out. But saying "I don't think you get it" is really not a personal attack. However, saying "Because of your opnion I think you are a flaming *******" is a personal attack. The preffered response would be something like "that's an opinion I just can't buy in to. Any particular point that has caused you to think that way?" Or, "It appears you and I are miles apart on this issue."

Since the question was directed to me and I've answered, I guess that's the end of this little discussion. It looks like we both agree on this issue CameraGuy, and BTW, Happy New Year.