First of all, Mea Culpa!!! Clipping the comment and the title was indeed a cheap shot.

skwirl, I have enjoyed many of willhelms clips and a number of the ensuing discussions, both on his clips and in his comments of other clips. I wasn't calling him a "Troll", but I did feel that his comment in this instance was antagonistic and baiting. (And what, is "meme thermometer", please?)

willhelm, I addressed your second comment at the other clip. That one did sound a bit more like an offering of opinion than did the first.

However, in this case it clearly does not belong.

If you check over there, you will see that we disagree. Which is just fine. We...

First of all, Mea Culpa!!! Clipping the comment and the title was indeed a cheap shot.

skwirl, I have enjoyed many of willhelms clips and a number of the ensuing discussions, both on his clips and in his comments of other clips. I wasn't calling him a "Troll", but I did feel that his comment in this instance was antagonistic and baiting. (And what, is "meme thermometer", please?)

willhelm, I addressed your second comment at the other clip. That one did sound a bit more like an offering of opinion than did the first.

However, in this case it clearly does not belong.

If you check over there, you will see that we disagree. Which is just fine. We are each allowed our own opinions.

interesting though is your cavalier use of the word censorship, while at
the same time castigating me for my opinion. Oh well. What can you do?

Interesting is your suggestion that my use of a word from the article itself is "cavalier". I admit that I am occasionally cavalier in my commentary, and although this clip might be an example of my being cavalier in a title, the title of my clip regarding the censorship of the painting was not.

In closing, I have never, nor shall I, castigate (to reprimand severely) you for your opinion. What I did was offer my opinion, (in a somewhat cavalier manner) of the innapropriateness of what I felt was your attack on me.