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.

As an outsider to this conversation,it is OK to have an opinion. However simply to express it without any backup or status is a waste of time, merely a meaningless vote, where a majority vote does not necessarily express sreality. And is certainly OT to the thread.

G=G+1

That is a long winded grammar lesson that would be better served with a simple apology for your attacks on Czoe.

"Why be a passive aggressive coward?" is a passive aggressive way to call someone a passive aggressive coward, and therefore cowardly.

Just to be passive aggressive about it.

G=G+1 for a non response to the point made.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

"Why be a passive aggressive coward?" is a passive aggressive way to call someone a passive aggressive coward, and therefore cowardly.

Sounds fair enough to me.

RGoss has really gone downhill.

Maybe he's recieved a stern warning that he must not claim to be living in peace and neighbourliness alongside Muslims. He must hate them the way we do.

Ah, Berry, leave it to you to radically shift the tone of any discussion.

I'm sorry to launch an unprovoked attack on RGoss.

But he provoked me.

Everybody provokes everybody else, at some stage.

Do they have commercials?

If not, then that is the obvious answer to everyone getting free TV.