What constitutes vitriol? (was Re: consent laws in the UK)

[Haggridd]

No: HPFGUIDX 28266

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., John Walton <john at w...> wrote:
>
> Moreover, even if the legal age for homosexuals were 16, the
reaction from
> certain sectors of society (particularly American society) would be
> vitriolic at best.
>
> --John
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> "It's our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our
> abilities." --Albus Dumbledore
>
> John Walton -- john at w...

It most certainly is, John, and you have chosen to cast a gratutitous
slur at American society from your sanctimonious far-above-the-fray
vantage point. I have called this post to the attention of the
moderators, and I have been waiting to no avail for the moderators to
take some action against this post of yours that violates more than
one of their "commandments."  Once again it has been demonstrated
that, as I have asserted before, in this Orwellian farm, some animals
are indeed more equal than others.

However, allow me to call these violations to your attention, for
whatever it may be worth:

The post is most certainly off topic.  I do not see any reasonable way
you can connect the  buggering of sixteen year old kids by adults to
the discussion of things Harry Potter.  Even speculation about
fanfiction that involves the sodomizing of fictional children of 16 by
adult fictional characters would be off topic, at best. Indeed, you
weren't writing about some slash where adult character "A" had a
physical relationship with 16 year old character "B". e.g., Harry
during the time of Book six; your post raises inflammatory material
from real life, which inflammatory material, IIRC, has been PUBLICLY
condemned by the moderators before in more than one instance--
although curiously not in this instance.  Could it be that sexual
relations between adults and sixteen year old boys is not considered
inflammatory?  Or is it that speculation about sexual relations
between adult characters and sixteen year old boys is appropriate for
this message board? Even if this be so, the language of the post was
not neutral.  It was not simply a report on political science in the
United Kingdom, upon the workings of Parliament.  It was a gauntlet
thrown at those whom the poster considered unworthy.  Any response, in
his omniscience, would be "vitriolic" at best.  IMHO, it doesn't take
a great deal of intelligence intelligence to predict that an attack
will engender a response. As for the vitriol, I would contend that the
vitriol had already been let out of the flask.

I am making no assertion in this post about homosexuality.  It might
surprise some of you to learn what I do think about it.  This post is
in response to the cavalier attack made in post #28215, with the tacit
approval of the moderators, who have not hesitated in the past to
condemn inappropriate posts.  If you consider this response vitriolic,
then so be it.

Haggridd