"the fact that we haven't trolled the other site, despite their saying offensive things about us, shows that it's entirely possible."
I would say that this thread at least can be consider evidence that it's NOT possible, though your point is taken that you and your peers didn't commit that error in particular. I do think that someone generally will. And really, they're free to, based on the same freedom of speech everyone on the Internet touts all the time. It might be rude of them, but so is most of what's said here, so I'm not sure it's objectively true that "jumping the fence" is actually wrong. Trespassing is only illegal in physical space, so all you've got left is "rude," and manners don't seem that important here in the first place. They shouldn't have come in, but you shouldn't have left the gate open and mailed them an invitation, and then we're back where we started, where everyone is just kind of sucking, so what can you do. I don't understand the focus on that particular action, which doesn't seem any more socially reprehensible to me than anything else that's gone on.
"I will admit that the first mistake was made on this side -- but the second, much bigger, mistake was what prompted the evolution."
I think that's how it usually works, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic. You make a mistake, the other side ups the stakes, then you make a third mistake by taking the bait and responding, yadda yadda, official clusterfuck, et cetera.
"And since your friend didn't post an exact link (just gave a boatload of clues to make the search easy), her readers DID have to seek us out in order to see the exact posts she referred to and quoted -- so that 'zero seeking involved' stuff is pretty inaccurate."
Nice touch on using my own words! But if you're going to do that, I'd like it if you considered all of them (and I realize there is an alarming number of them). I've said it before, but if you didn't see it, I'm talking about the bloggers, not the trolls. Trolls are a different story, at least the ones who fight fire with fire and then are surprised when the result is more fire. I don't see that as productive either, and any bingoing they accidentally commit is just going to strengthen your bitterness. You can certainly argue that anyone typing this stuff into a Google box was just sniffing out drama out of curiosity. I wouldn't contradict you on that, especially since I've done it myself in other situations.
"And my post about the striking similarity between the kid and the testicle came AFTER your friend's post."
I was just using it as an example because that is the very kind of insult I'm talking about and it was the first one that came to mind. I'll clarify: insults that are similar in nature to comparing a baby to animal balls tend to be considered incendiary. I should have said "severed dog head," but that distinction seems pretty arbitrary.
"Schnozz believes she is the moral police for the childfree movement."
Not sure how the opinions I've voiced here can be metaphorically equated with arresting and prosecuting someone. "Moral police" is just a mostly meaningless buzzphrase intended to alarm people, just like "sanctity of marriage" or "family values." If you're trying to say that I'm sitting here telling people they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, then yes, but I don't see how that distinguishes me from everyone else on the entire Internet, much less this board.
Feh, thanks for your response. I'd say everything is about as cleared up for me as it's going to get, both good and bad. People are obviously getting frustrated with my use of this thread whether I'm CF or not, and that was easier to ignore when I had something to accomplish. So, having made my various points about twenty-four times, I'm thinking it's time to make like a baby and head out.
Peace.