<div class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Ronald Frazier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ron@ronfrazier.net" target="_blank">ron@ronfrazier.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Jean-Yves Avenard <<a href="mailto:jyavenard@gmail.com">jyavenard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"></div>Even if there was no Jesus/Lord link intended, that's still a personal<br>
attack. Or are you trying to say there was no sarcasm intended there,<br>
and you meant every word you said?<br>
<br>
And yes, others did make personal attacks too:<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think we're suffering a cultural divide here - in Australia, and likely elsewhere, a sarcastic response is generally considered lighthearted humour, not an "attack".</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">> Looks like I should just ignore this user list from now on...<br>
<br>
</div>Why, are you unable to participate while remaining civil? I'm not<br>
asking anyone to kiss anyone's ass or anything, but there's no need<br>
for the sofrt of comments I quoted above, especially when Mark really<br>
didn't do anything to provoke it.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>As above, I wouldn't consider any of JYA's behaviour "uncivil".</div><div><br></div><div>- Chris </div></div></div>