[Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship

[Charles J. Cohen]

Sorry to respond again. Just skip if this is of no interest.

>And yet, choosing to take personal offense where none is intended (I'm  
>not saying that is you Dirk) when the criticism is aimed at someone  

I think you are referring to me, since I made the first comment.

>else entirely is a sign that one might have a higher "sensitivity"  
>than others reading the exact same thing. This is not surprising.  
>Unfortunately, some people will naturally feel that they are being  
>personally belittled when someone criticizes something they believe,  
>no matter how sugar coated it gets. My post was satire, and not  
>belittling to anyone here personally.  Anybody here who didn't read it  
>that way might seriously consider the implications of the term "knee- 
>jerk reaction" and how it pertains to themself. Nobody says we all  
>have to agree all the time, but taking offense at someone's  
>disagreement is a choice.

Please note what I said before in my post:

>I'm glad [to] hear that wasn't the case.

(I left the [to] out, typo, sorry.)

It wasn't obvious to me, and I felt it sounded bad. Nowhere did I say it
was a personal attack.

And I go back to the whole main point of my post, which was:

> In this medium, it is very hard to read emotions, so I recommend that
> you respond a bit more carefully .

That's all, nothing more.

A good gentle, new to our group, makes a post about his office, and what
is one of the first responses? A heap of sarcasm (that I, personally,
also had trouble recognizing as such).  That didn't seem fair to him.

- Midair