You conveniently omitted the part where you justified calling her a coward.

Now I'm passive aggressive, too?

I actually get accused of that a lot.

It seems that people would prefer I outright insult them instead of being diplomatic in my replies.

OK Goss. 

I will be blunt.

Stop insulting people on my forum.  It's a rule.

Grammar problema, I did not call her a coward, that charge would require an indicitave sentence, I used a subjunctive, as indicated by the Word "if" and the question "Why be a coward". This describes her not as a  coward, but her action as interpretedly as "cowardly", e.g. not an ad hom. Note you have not provided a sample of my post where I said she was a coward.

In this context, yes, your being diplomatic is passive aggressive because the language used while giving an implication leaves you free of the responsibility of your intent. 

RGoss99 said:

So what response is posible to an ad hom sent to me would your rules allow.

A bit of mockery. Mention Yosemite Sam.

RGoss99 said:

If you object to the criteria I use, why be a passive-aggressive coward

This is the second time I have quoted you on this.

RGoss99 said:

Note you have not provided a sample of my post where I said she was a coward.

See above post.

I think you're a bad man and have been winding Jenifer up to a nearly intolerable degree.

G=G+2 for ignoring the fact that I explained why this is not evidence of her being a coward (which would be if I had called her a coward). Your error is either/or one of grammar or missing context. In grammar to call one a coward requires an indicative sntence, but the "if" here means it is subjunctive, not really a coward. In addition if I said "you are a coward" this would be an ad hom if was not based n specific behavior, so in context the "be" instead of "are" means "why are acting as if you were a coward." If you object to or do not understand my previous answer, it is your responsibility to respond to it, and disagree with some reason. The "G" in this case is for choosing to repeat yourself while ignoring my explanation in terms of language. Using a Trump example. Trump is not passive-aggressive, he is just aggressive when he says Hillary is a crook. if a passive-agresive he would have said that her actions seeme to be criminal, what makes this passive, is that he left out the obvious part "(seem) to me ...". Never called her a coward, only that her actions were cowardly because her langauge did not take responsibility for her message, which would be required <<IF>> she was interested in an honest discussion.