Bruce K

@barbox - You are a worth adversary, or shall I say accomplice in the search for truth. My responses are in red: Well, we are in the "Politics, Religion, and Controversy" section, aren't we. We're now 3 for 3. I have never brought up a single political issue, except for the use of Trump's name. Religion and apolitical controversy are, however, fine subjects for discourse on this thread, and highly pertinent. Why do you keep jumping to extremes like this? Not everything is a slippery slope. THESE are accurate examples of argument ad absurdum, but like other correct examples of the breed, they establish a point, and do not deliver insults. Regarding feelings: People can feel anything they want. Searching for the truth, however, is a different goal, a higher bar. Truth is difficult to find, but as long as we allow words to have commonly understood definitions, we can approach truth. I made the point earlier that absolute truth belongs to God alone, but our best attempts can still be very good. But any attempt must be centered on the meaning of language. Any philosophy that ignores the meanings of words, or exchanges them for feelings, disables the search for truth. When you were offended by what Vovchandr said, it wasn't because of the definitions of any of the words he used, it was because of the associations and implications of the cultural figures he referenced. Those associations and implications are not universal truths - different people have different associations for the same cultural figures, as you learned with Trump. That doesn't mean one's associations and implications are invalid or untrue, they just vary person to person. The dictionary definition of the term "definition" is the agreed meaning, which in this case encompasses any additional significances acquired by "association". The meaning of Saddam Hussein's life is death: 300,000 largely innocent victims savaged unto demise - a meaning similarly associated with Adolf Hitler. Associating anyone with Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler has an agreed meaning: It means that the person is like these individuals, and is therefore despicable. To unrealistically argue that some other beneficent meaning was intended is to ignore the generally understood significance of the words, and to therefore abandon the search for truth. BTW, I have no emotional response to anything Vovchandr said. My offense is a logical decision, based on his word choice. Why "better yet, withheld"? Like you'd actually prefer to not know if something you said unintentionally offended someone? I am looking to always learn, always grow, always improve. I need feedback to do that. I absolutely want someone to let me know if I said something that's a racist dog whistle or an insensitive stereotype or whatever else may have inadvertently caused offense. People should not burden others with unnecessary feelings. If individual A expresses a thought to individual B that, based on the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words, is in no way injurious, then individual B should go no further. If the thought is a true "dog whistle" or other injury, then communicate. Expressing our feelings of insult irrespective of the meanings of words just retards communication and prevents open exchange. This is happening on college campuses now, when speakers who are simply conservative, or Jewish, are not allowed to speak. I don't want to know what everyone is thinking all the time - it would drive me insane. If an auditioner can find fault in the meaning of my words, then they should speak, but they should not analyze with feelings. When others told me that many people find any sort of association with Trump to be offensive, it surprised me, but I could understand - Trump's meaning includes several brash and unpopular statements and lots of conservative positions unwelcome to many. It was a truth I did not contemplate when I tendered my original compliment. However, I recognize that truth now and will not repeat the error. Vovchandr should similarly recognize his mistake, based on the meanings of his words. But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it? Am I not speaking truth when I say I feel offense? Your feelings are not truth - they are just your emotions, and I don't need or want to hear everyone's feelings. Yes, your feelings belong to you, making them yours, but that doesn't make them logical, fairly derived or true. Again, we must return to the definitions or commonly understood meanings of the words employed in the exchange. If the words were truly racist, or homophobic, or in some other way insulting, state that and prove your point. Otherwise, keep your vagrant whims and emotions to yourself - our heads are already too cluttered. 2 hrs ago, Bruce K said: Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they're any good at finding it. Their bar is generally "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is far from absolute truth. For example, did you know that, since 1973 (when executions were resumed in the US after Furman v. Georgia), for every 8 people executed, 1 person on death row has been exonerated? Especially impressive if you're at all familiar with the enormous challenge it is to exonerate a convict under our legal system. I believe, though flawed, the American jury system is the fairest and best available system for providing our jurisprudence. Would you rather have AI decide our fates? Otherwise, your statement agrees with mine. Juries seek the truth, but because only God knows the absolute truth of any situation, they will often get it wrong. As jurors, and in life, we are attempting, as essentially fallible beings, to find the truth, and failure is inevitable. This is why the Catholic Church, source of so much good, for many years burned "heretics" and "witches" at the stake, accumulated ill-gotten fortunes, and waged territorial wars - because the human nature of its leaders included susceptibility to lies, greed, and other mortal weaknesses. We humans WILL fail, but seeking the truth with words of defined meaning is our best hope to obtain our share of the truth.

@barbox & @SENC - I am very much enjoying this courteous and logical exchange. However, I am becoming aware of some fundamental differences in our world views. In my universe, truth cannot be determined by feelings. Legitimate insult cannot be solely ascertained by how another feels about it, because that discourages all communication - are we to stop saying "Hello" because someone, somewhere may take offense? Are we to cease all criticism, because someone might feel hurt? It is an essential belief of mine that words have universally understood meaning, outside the realm of feelings. Thus, if anyone utters words that are logically and reasonably offensive, based on their common definitions, offense is justified. Otherwise, in the absence of language that is hurtful by definition, feelings about the language are immaterial. Certainly, anyone can feel hurt, at any time, about anything, but in the absence of actual harmful language, the emotions are unjustified and should be ignored, or better yet, withheld. In your example above, the true reason for offense was discovered in your words at a later date. Discovery is a legitimate tool in the search for truth. In fact, that is what happened to me - I discovered over time that the mention of Trump could turn a compliment into an insult by association. We can never find absolute truth, because that belongs to God, but we agree on definitions and get as close as we can. I disagree with the term "your truth" because truth is independent of us and our feelings. Truth is what juries seek, regardless of how defendants feel. Truth is often revealed to us by a conspiracy of our guts and heads, but it stands apart from any individual. Truth is immutable, though not always scrutable. We spend our lives searching for it, but find, by grace of God, only our earned share. To say that truth relies on and changes with individual feelings is to deny the entirety of western learning. To unmoor the meanings of words from their accepted definitions, and replace their meanings with feelings, is to render the search for truth impossible. Further, intent is not something obscure and arcane. It is an essential survival tool, and elemental to human nature. Humans are taught to interpret and respect intent from a young age. I am old enough to remember neighborhood bullies and fist fights, and even though I was a kid, I studied and came to understand, in acute detail, the intent of my block bully. Humans utilize perception of intent at every stoplight, at every crosswalk, whenever we meet a stranger or someone new. Study of intent is at the root of nearly every human transaction. Even animals study and understand intent. Use your angry voice and yell "Good dog " at your pet and see how it responds Thus, intent is not only material, but usually obvious, and in any event, scrutable in most cases by ordinary folk. And intent is a requisite in delivering an insult, because otherwise it is just a mistake. Vovnchandr knew exactly what he was saying. I have already established that "argumentum ad absurdum" is not an excuse for the use of insulting language but rather a tool in the search for truth. The truth about Saddam Hussien is this: He butchered both his political enemies and his governed people - fed them to wild animals and Doberman Pinschers, cut them into pieces, shot them, stabbed them - likely about 300,000 such deaths, not counting those from war. There is no quality of Saddam's that any reasonable, moral person would ever want associated with themselves. Ditto his reference to the serial child molester responsible for over 50 underage assaults. Therefore, Vovchandr, by reasonable measure and definition, intended to insult.

@barbox - Actually, I disagree with you, for several reasons. First, the definition of argument ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") is an attempt to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. It is never an excuse for bad manners, like Vovchandr's comparison. An example might be this: Two people are arguing that votes should be counted within one day of the election. One person says "Let them have two weeks to count". The other says "Why not let them have two years?" That is an absurd reaction, because his scenario could eliminate or substantially reduce the official's time in office. Vovchandr offered no such analysis, only his gruesome and untoward comparisons. Secondly, your entire second paragraph IMO is an attempt to reconstrue Vovchandr's words. His words are what they are, and sufficiently severe for me to take offense. Yes, my offense increased as Vovchandr continued his truly silly defense of outrageous slurs by calling them compliments. His words have generally standardized meanings, and based on those definitions he engaged in an outrageous overreaction that, frankly, has no place in a forum dedicated to friendly discussion. My initial reaction to his words was to provide an opportunity for Vovchandr to throttle back, an opportunity he rejected. Third and last in regards to this point, if it is appropriate for me to consider Vovchandr's insults as "joking" or something similar, then it is also appropriate to apply that same logic to my Trump compliment, and ask all who were offended by it to retract their words because it was just a joke. But secondly, I strongly disagree with your statement that my personal offense is all that is required to establish an insult. If you believe in the importance of intent, you must see your error. I have no right to become offended by truly innocent remarks. Vovchandr would have no obligation to apologize if he had asked me for my age, or inquired when I had lost my hair, even if I was sensitive to these topics - they are normal, conversational interrogatories. To state that only my feelings are required to determine if behavior is insulting is another way of saying that truth doesn't matter. If I can decide whether something is insulting or not, simply based on my mood at that time, truth becomes less than relative - it has no actual meaning. I believe words have meaning, even if we allow some latitude for slightly different definitions. Discursive conversation is a search for truth via language - thus, we should choose our words carefully and courteously, in order to be truthful and to avoid real offense. This, to me, is the most important issue: What is the difference between courteous, productive dialectic, and raw invective?

@barbox - With respect, and granting that your response is courteous and well-written, you are IMO misanalysing the situation. Yes, I was slow to believe what I was reading, and I have admitted that several times. I did not expect the level of emotion that my attempted compliment aroused. That was my error, and I have admitted it several times. But intent is important - if someone gets killed, it can be the difference between a manslaughter charge and life in prison. My unwelcome compliment was obviously associated only with beneficent intent - I challenge anyone to disprove that - and nothing I did warranted Vovchandr's asymmetric reply. My only remaining issue in this argument is that Vovchandr intended harm - as much as he could fit into words - when he compared me to Saddam Hussein and the serial child molester. As I suggested before, I bumped him, and he put a bullet into me. If we argue like that - argumentum ad hominem - attacking the man, not the issue - we will never settle disputes. If someone speaks to us, and we yell back at the top of our lungs, it is the end of civil discourse. That is the only problem I have with Vovchandr, with whom, as I have noted before, I have enjoyed several previous and pleasant discussions. No part of my argument is hypocrisy. It is treating words with their intended weight, and attempting to divine their most correct contextual meaning. I have stated multiple times that my compliment was a mistake that I will not make again. I did not utilize Trump in a political sense, but only as a proven leader and someone who accomplishes his agenda. I did not propose any opinion regarding the nature of his agenda, or suggest that his viewpoints were superior. I was referencing only certain undeniable capabilities of the man - an apolitical reference. You may not like Trump, and I respect your opinion, but, like Biden, he indisputably has talents and capabilities. I was referencing those - nothing political. @Croc - The purpose of this thread should be to settle differences and to learn how to communicate. Those are admirable goals and should not be thwarted. I know I have added to my knowledge of effectual interpersonal communications by participating in this thread. Mistakes are easy to make, as I found out. Look at your post from last Friday, when you wrote "I feel guilty for starting this little boy's pissing contest". You likely didn't realize, but that was an attack ad hominem. You called this 73 year old man a little boy, and denigrated our argument by calling it a pissing contest. Instead of addressing the issues, you called names. The reason this thread has so many posts already is that the issue of effective communication is critical, and when mistakes occur, people get fired up. This post lets the heat out and the truth in. I recognize that you calling me a "little boy" is not in the same league as calling me a serial child abuser, and I responded proportionally. I knew your intent did not include injury.

@Croc - as usual, your post regarding tires was illuminating, and I will include it in the next edition of the upgrade and repair manual. Regarding this thread, I believe you are overlooking some singular benefits. Far from a "little boys pissing contest", it is a room for combatants to meet, reach across the table and come to terms. For that reason, I suggest this thread be renamed to "Settling Disputes", and any such disagreements get ported here. It is an opportunity to cool down, identify the important issues, understand mistakes, and learn how to argue civilly, which is my only remaining dispute with Vovchandr. Those are important objectives, and will enable improved future communications between members.

@Cueball1 - sorry for the late response - I just noticed your question. I don't think the two inch drop will be a problem. Croc has more track knowledge than I, so he would be a better party to interrogate on this matter. IMO, it is vital to keep a balance up front between push AKA understeer (the front tires slide out) and oversteer (the front tires grab so well, and/or rear traction is compromised, so that the car pivots around the front tires). Personally, I prefer a car with just a bit of push at the extremes, and a car that is quickly salvageable when oversteer hits. The front tire treatment ties into the rear - too wide in back will detract from your ability to move the car around, eliminate throttle steer, and encourage understeer. In your case, based on my experience, I would use a bit more width in the front, say 7.5 inches, not so you can fit a bigger tire, but to firm up the tire on the wheel, so it can grip the track surface better instead of rolling over. On track with my S2K, I used symmetric racing wheels and tires all around - (from memory:) 13" diameter wheels by 10" wide with Hoosier racing slicks. The car stuck like glue and went like hell. It would push and sometimes oversteer if the tires were cold, and because of the light overall weight, sometimes the better part of two laps was required to heat them up.

@anduril3019 - the metaphors posed by Vovchandr were too extreme and insulting. His references were two of the worst characters humanity has ever produced. No reasonable person should think they can draw references like those, in the heat of an argument, without insulting the recipient. Besides, if we are to apply your argument fully, my initial compliment of Croc should have been taken in the same vein. Instead, people like Croc and others did not like my comparison, and spoke up. Their natural reaction was to object to it, the same as I am doing now. The difference is this: Croc and I and the others always remained gentlemen, and engaged in useful dialectic. Name-calling is the opposite. Regarding my original comparison, I accept that it was unwelcome, and will avoid political references in the future.

@barbox - certainly! "How are Vovchandr 's metaphors also directed at Trump?" Vovchandr applied his disgusting metaphors (quoted below) because I, with obvious intention to compliment, compared Trump's leadership to Croc's. He wouldn't have applied them if I had compared Croc to the Dalai Lama, or to Mother Theresa, so the difference regarding my treatment is the person of Trump. Therefore, by extension, the metaphors directed toward me also reference Trump, a conclusion which Vovchandr endorsed when he tried to explain how his metaphors applied to Trump, as well. It's all just hurtful hyperbole, but that is now the point - we should all avoid attacks ad hominem, because they never make the situation better. "Why does it matter if Vovchandr's metaphors also attack Trump?" We should not be discussing politics on this platform, except tangentially. By insulting Trump, via logical extension of his argument, Vovchandr was arguing politics, which we should avoid. But I also believe that candidates should be held accountable for what they actually do or fail to do. If I called Biden a killer of millions, or a serial child molester with multitudinous convictions, I would be wrong. I would be lying. It is similarly wrong and a lie to call Trump these names. Vovchandr's metaphorical attack, from an earlier post (as of 1/25, not yet a part of this thread): "2) To me you're totally a mix of Saddam Hussein & Earl Brian Bradley and I mean that in the most complementary way possible. I expect you to appreciate this complementary comparison. A "thank you, I'm honored" will do."

@JohnCh - This thread appears to be pretty robust - now on the third page. I suggest that you retitle the thread to "Settling Disputes" or something like that. Pages like these give fellow members the chance to winnow down the issues, and actually understand and own their mistakes. Anytime any member gets hot under the collar, you could move the conversation to this thread. I know I've learned quite a bit about effective communications through this experience. I'll bet others could, too.

@barbox - Everyone contributing to this discussion has long moved past the issue of the unwelcome compliment, no form of which will I ever tender again. To me, the remaining important issue is HOW we disagree. I obviously intended a compliment, and my motivations were benign. In response, Vovchandr directed the following remarks to me, which should be made part of this thread (the thread began a posting or two later): "2) To me you're totally a mix of Saddam Hussein & Earl Brian Bradley and I mean that in the most complementary way possible. I expect you to appreciate this complementary comparison. A "thank you, I'm honored" will do." That Bradley character is a heinous serial child abuser, and Hussien killed millions! By inference, this grievous insult is also directed toward Trump. Language like this is completely and absurdly asymmetric to my actions on this site. Unless applied to characters like Hitler or Stalin, such language has no basis in fact and constitutes an attack ad hominem. Unlike the progress made elsewhere on this thread, name-calling rarely settles issues, and usually just deepens enmities. Rather than simply withdrawing the unseemly metaphor, Vovchandr continues to call me names including "pretentious" (thread or two above) and thin-skinned. People cannot reconcile while insulting one another like this. Everyone else on this thread has participated in a valuable learning process, including you and I, but the work is not yet complete.

I agree with your betting advice, but disagree with your conclusion. If you read all the posts carefully, it becomes apparent that the participants are adult men seeking to prevent future mistakes in communication (myself included). IMO that is a lofty and worthwhile goal. More and more, I think it can be the purpose of this thread whenever arguments on this site become imbued with anger. John, perhaps a name change to "Arguments to be Settled" or something similar?

I apologize, but my understanding is that this entire thread is about unappreciated compliments, so those still interested should feel welcome to stay on topic. Meaning no insult, I suggest that if the subject bores you, you can ignore this conversation. In the meantime, all (or at least most) of the participants are learning better ways to deal with each other, certainly a valid and important endeavor.

Vovchandr was the original propagator of the attacks ad hominem. Your placating words are much appreciated, however, and betray you as a man of peace and reason. I repeat that I never intended to insult anyone with my comparison. It was an accident which I shall not repeat.

Yes, I recall your endorsement of Vovchandr's remarks. I want you in particular to understand that I am happy to change the reference in my simile regarding Croc. I intended only a compliment. That matters, because it should moderate the response. When Vovchandr then compared me (and by extension, Trump) to Saddam Hussein and and serial child molester, that was a pubescent attempt to hurt and injure - an attack ad hominem - and should never be part of discussions between civil people. Even if I was slow on the uptake regarding the unsuitability of my comparison, I was always a gentleman, and responses should not have devolved into poisonous namecalling. This last point is especially true because we are all friends.

You should always check the "Parts for Sale" thread on this forum. Regarding tires, Avon's have been mounted on a number of my Sevens. To me, Avon's provide the best performance, durability and feedback in these lightweight Sevens - the best overall package. For pure track tires, however, Hoosiers are the best IMO. However, this thread deals with civil discussion, and how to conduct it if discussion descends into argument. We are going to cost John money if we lard it up with general Sevens discussion!

Funny! And sorry for your loss. I will have nothing more to share with my ex-friend Vovchandr until he apologizes, which is a likely occurrence on any day the thermometer hits zero in Hell. I was an intercollegiate debater for four college years - never lost to a single Ivy League school - and thus have been trained to recognize and abhor attacks ad hominem as the very opposite of informed, classically liberal dialectic. That issue is the reason I persisted with my replies. But I think you could bet good money again that this thread does not go a full 1.5 pages, unless Vovchandr likes talking to himself!

@Vovchandr - I don't care how many novels you write in attempted explanation - nothing can change the fact that your comparisons were intentionally insulting and inappropriate. Even if unacceptable to you, I made my comparisons with good intentions, and obviously so. Your comparison of both myself and Trump to mega-killer Saddam Hussein and a certain serial child abuser were unwarranted and asymmetric - I bumped you, so you put a bullet in me. Remember - my compliment was a mistake - no harm intended. On the other hand, your insults were purposed to harm, to the greatest extent effectuable by words alone, and you have not retracted them. Your actions are not consistent with those of a gentleman, or a classical liberal, and I will neither read nor respond to anything more from you unless it includes an apology. This forum should not be about asymmetric responses to perceived insults. Croc, at significant personal expense, keeps us posted on the North American Seven market every week. John and others keep this site running while receiving little to no compensation. I am the author of the 200+ page "WCM S2K and Other Sevens Repair and Upgrade Manual", which helps the 90 or so owners of S2Ks keep them on the road, and is located in this forum's downloadable library. These sorts of activities, provided with the friendliest of intentions, should be the hallmark of this forum.

@Vovchandr - at first, I thought you guys were joking - I couldn't imagine offense being taken from my remark. Continued polite insistence, clear and simple, would have convinced me. I will not own responsibility for your rude, scurrilous rejoinders - your lack of manners is entirely upon you and a few others. I needed a little convincing, which I have duly received, but without the positive consequences that normally flow with correction. And even if I proved unwilling to change my remarks - which is not the case - they did not deserve your responses. Civil discourse should never include such over-the-top and insulting hyperboles. Because you continue to defend your open and obvious insults, directed to both myself and Trump, I can only conclude that you are as ill-mannered as you sound, and no friend of mine. Regarding your "parallels", they are so unreasonable and overdrawn as to invite sarcasm - like comparing the launch of a kite to the launch of a moon probe. As noted above, what bothers me is that you intended the insult. Thank you, Croc, for recognizing that I had no intention to insult you or anyone else. I should not have chosen a politician or person of controversy as basis for my simile.

@Vovchandr - your remarks were doubly offending because I have personally spoken to you before, and enjoyed pleasant conversations. I am upset because of the extremely rude similes you proposed, linking me, and Trump by inference, to a decades-long mass murderer and a prolific child abuser. Whatever you think of Trump, he has never been anything related to your hyperbolic references. All that was required was to request that I please choose a different person for comparison. It was evident that I regard Trump highly, and intended a compliment, as noted by Croc. There was no symmetry in your response. It was an extreme reaction - extremely rude, and inappropriate to employ vis-à-vis an individual who has been uniformly polite and helpful on this forum. @pethier - I agree with you, and I do not discuss politics in this forum. My remark was intended as an apolitical compliment, utilizing a strong leader as the basis of the simile. The extreme response I received is related to negative impressions various forum members have formed of Trump, which remains their right in a country becoming less classically liberal every week. My only objection to all the diatribes I received is that bad manners were unnecessary and were counterproductive - a simple request to alter my compliment would have been appropriate.

@Vovchandr , @barbox and @IamScotticus: RE: Paragraph one - Anyone running for president becomes controversial, a point eloquently explicated by Iamscotticus. The context of my post made clear my intention: To tender a compliment. To receive, in response, scurrilous retorts comparing me, and by inference Trump, to mass murderers and child molesters is unconscionable. A simple request to employ a different comparison would have been adequate. Though I support Trump as the best available answer to our country's severe problems, my purpose was never political and I will not defend him here. I will say this much: Within my longest memory, neither Trump nor I ever came close to hitting anyone, let alone murdering them, and neither of us have any interest in sexual liasons with children. Vovchandr's retort was so assymetric and extreme, it seems more an attempt at speech suppression than an attempt to improve my post. RE: Paragraph two - I stated in a much earlier post that I would gladly have changed my simile, if requested. I never had the chance. No requests for edit were tendered , and with a few exceptions from defenders of civil speech, respondents primarily engaged in silly grade-school putdowns. Respondents like Vovchandr better stay away from paper and other sharp objects, given the thinness of their skin. RE: Paragraph three - Criticism is not only acceptable, but welcome from civil people. What I received instead was invective. Meaningful criticism requires a full understanding of the subject matter, which, in my case, must include the purpose of my comments. Though it can be thematically scalding, proper criticism is also logical and civil. The offending retorts were the opposite: blatant attempts to insult, which I, as a long-standing contributor to this forum, find offensive.

Your beater looks better than many of my best, especially during my younger years. Very nice!

NEW TOPIC: I inadvertently cranked the tail of a hibernating bear when I penned the following intended compliment in the Sevens for Sale thread: "Croc - good to see your Seven market postings are back. You are the Donald Trump of the Seven community - we've all been waiting for you to return and restore order to a confused marketplace, to help buyers get the most product for their money, and to read more of the savage honesty dipped in wit that has been a Croc trademark for years." I am truly amazed at the number of people who are deeply insulted by this remark. One member, in reaction, compared me to a mass murderer and a child rapist! Such overreactions are both uncouth and asymmetrical to the issue. The new issue becomes: Is modern dialectic even possible? Can we attempt compliments? If a compliment draws such reactions, how will be ever criticize, which is so necessary in the pursuit of truth? Can we pursue truth together any longer? The most appropriate response by all parties disliking my compliment would have been a request to compare Croc to someone else, which I readily accept. But the reactions I received put proof to snowflake arguments. And "snowflake" does not properly describe the damage that thin skin does to public discourse. Here was my response to the worst of the replies: This is silly. Your comparison was clearly intended to be demeaning to me, while I clearly intended to posit a compliment to Croc. Croc is a very popular figure with the Seven community, and he deserves it, because he is a leader who volunteers a lot of his time to important pursuits within the community. Those qualities were the basis of my comparison of Croc to Trump, and that was obvious. For anyone, in response, to compare me to both a mass murderer and a child rapist is not only uncouth, but asymmetrical and unrelated to this issue."

This is silly. Your comparison was clearly intended to be demeaning to me, while I clearly intended to posit a compliment to Croc. Croc is a very popular figure with the Seven community, and he deserves it, because he is a leader who volunteers a lot of his time to important pursuits within the community. Those qualities were the basis of my comparison of Croc to Trump, and that was obvious. For anyone, in response, to compare me to both a mass murderer and a child rapist is not only uncouth, but asymmetrical and unrelated to this issue.

Thanks for the free speech support, MV8. Croc, how could I possibly insult you with remarks which, in my mind, pose a clearly favorable comparison to a historic figure? I clearly intended my statements as compliments. I did not intend to inject politics - only to compare you with another significant leader. I could understand a request from you to compare you to someone else, which I clearly understand and accept, but all this stuff about being insulted - you have to bake my remarks cherry red and beat them with a hammer to shape them into insults. We need free speech to be truly free, not contorted into attacks.

@Vovchandr- it's my compliment, and a reference to the Dalai Lama is also sweet, although I have never considered Croc as the persona of peacefulness. More like the harbinger of horsepower. For no particular reason, I'll drop this bit of info: My cousin bought a Dodge Challenger Demon as an investment. According to him (he's an engineer), the final Demons have hundreds of additional horsepower and multiple driveline enhancements, to secure their position as the fastest IC production car ever offered. The 0 to 60 time in the final Demons is 1.6 seconds - unreal - faster than Bugattis - faster than the fastest EV's!