"In the post above, when you addressed me
as "you," did you mean that I, Mike, have at some time shown "bad" (not just imperfect) manners in the content of my posts to this
Don't get me wrong. I'm not Miss Manners here. I actually enjoy heated, borderline angry debates. And we should never get bogged down in etiquette (at least I think.) I just don't like it when the debate evaporates and leaves only the anger. Then things get tedious.
In response to your question, I wasn't addressing "you" in particular, it's easier than saying "a hypothetical poster who may or may not exist at this particular juncture in time." You seem level headed most of the time, I just don't always get what points you try to make by splitting hais all the time. :)
"It seems to me that Harv, as valuable as his
thoughts may be, could deserve some criticism for
assuming a "mother goose" role and patronizingly dismissing a lot of posts without condescending to refute them logically"
No one's perfect. Piss me off, and I turn into a jerk. As I said, however, I understand where Aurino is coming from, since I get bogged down in the language Harv uses as well, which can get irritating. I doubt it's intentional, though.
By the way, I think you're using "condescending" wrong. It doesn't mean "to stoop down to." It means to speak to someone in a degrading manner that isn't outright hostile. Like speaking to an adult like the way you would speak to a child. Using overly simple terms and being saccharine sweet. Just so you know.