Nordling said:I just find it very odd that you put so much energy into attacking people who defend themselves against an unwarranted attack but have nothing to say about the attacker. Everyone deals with attacks differently, and personally, I have nothing against the defenses used in this thread. I think comparing it to an Old Testament quote (eye for an eye) is itself over the top.
Better advice:
If you find yourself to harbor unconscious resentment for successful women, and get drunk... DO NOT log onto the internet until you sober up.
But I am not attacking people. It is an often, very often, a misrepresented thing by people - if they do not agree 100% with your opinion, they're obviously against you.
Merely pointing out, due to the lack of anyone pointing it out, that similar behaviour was exhibited and then supported by others.
In other words, hypocrisy. I find both sides to be at fault. Yes, he started it and was out of line for doing so as he was being nasty. But that doesn't excuse the response either. It makes it understandable, but when people are clicking "thanks" on comments indicating a desire for the person to... then that too deserves castigation.
I don't have "sides" with anyone or any group on this forum - my posting should definitely show that. I am just saying people should be more constrained in their response and be mindful of what they are saying - as otherwise, they exhibit the same behaviour they're fighting against and exhibit hypocrisy.