On Jun 14, 9:13 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote: > There's no need for bullying (George), it's just a maths theory. > Address the statements and questions and add your own.
I want to avoid using five-letter insults in a thread unless another poster in the thread has introduced that word.
Here, Herc calls George Greene a "bully."
Now whether Greene deserves to be called "bully" is open to a debate, but still, there must be an underlying reason that posters like Herc and galathaea use the word "bully" to describe posters like Greene.
I see that WM has joined this thread as well. Normally, I would be grateful to see Cooper and WM work together to stand up to the "bully" Greene -- except I noticed that Greene has yet to post in this thread or respond to Herc at all.
Also, in this thread, WM calls Jesse Hughes a "crank," and then Daryl McCullough argues that the word "crank" more accurately describes WM than Hughes.
I agree with McCullough to some extent. Based on his posting habits, Hughes is more likely to agree with posters who merit the "bully" label than those who merit the "crank" label.
But, as I mentioned earlier, I will not divide posters into group, but let other posters group for themselves. And so if WM believes that "crank" is the grouping label that best describes Hughes, than who am I to interfere with that?