Originally Posted By: tsuwm
 Originally Posted By: latishya
 Originally Posted By: tsuwm
implicit in my post was angry.. upset.. thoughtful; all the samples were supportive. this is weak editorial policy.


I disagree. I don't think it was weak editorial policy at all. I think it was deliberate - "let's only publish the angry rants, to show the world what angry nuts those vicious carnivores are". As is his right, Anu selectively published responses to promote his own views.


and as long as we're discussing interpretation, who's being quoted here? I think my post should be read as wondering where the thoughtful, non-supportive responses were? I would never expect to see rants quoted by Anu.


so is this a situation wher I could say I was, what is the idiom, 042? Or Oh for too?