[Crim]

When the site decrees a rule that there shall be no “bashing” but can’t even express in third grade words what that means, I challenge the intellectual credentials of that site.

This site is private property and the OWNER just said knock off the catholic bashing and you want to argue with the property owner on what he allows on his property.

Not very wise.

[trubolotta]

I asked the owner to define “bashing”. He has not. Would you like to try?

[southern rock]

This site is private property and the OWNER just said knock off the catholic bashing and you want to argue with the property owner on what he allows on his property.

Oh please, it's a website, not a front yard.

[Springfield Reformer]

the OWNER just said knock off the catholic bashing

"bashing" is a word so abused by the left it is nearly impossible to figure out what it means, especially when both sides feel they are legitimate in their passions.

So I agree in part and dissent in part with what trubolotta has said. In dissent, I would say one should always speak discreetly of the one whose house this is. His rules do apply, even if they are fatally ambiguous.

And I agree in part because this anti-bashing rule is indeed fatally ambiguous. In real-world law, ambiguity makes laws unenforceable. If the ban is to be enforced, it must be clear enough that we all know how to avoid an infraction, without retreating into total silence. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask.

Peace,

SR