This is my original flame to TJ.
This remark, from 3/29/10, is another of TJ's responses to my flame. Here TJ condemns flaming and then he makes the vow to never respond to a flame with more flames.
Fast forward...
This remark, from 3/31/10, is TJ's response to something that he perceived as a flame and then he makes the same vow... never respond to a flame with more flames.
Then TJ waltzes into the voting thread and flames me for an answer that did not satisfy him.
Scared little girl? Gross inequities as a man? Despite the verbiage, both statements imply the same thing: "taking a shot at either's manhood".
The only, single difference here is: I never made such a vow as to never return a flame with a flame. TJ did in fact make that vow as noted on two separate occasion, listed above, and I caught him in a lie.
Though he has argued mightily what he said was not a flame, I would beg to differ the case of flames being subjective. He has also argued that it was inline with the debate, however his poor choice of words in the analogy was poorly received. As his subsequent posts have all been vindictive and accusatory implying that I did not answer his question.
Bottom line: TJ is a hypocrite. I caught him red-handed in lies. He puts up a big stink about it, because all he is trying to do is "save face" and divert attention away from himself.