I gues I don't understand why it seems it's necessary for some to personally attack and mock others that don't agree with them, rather than respond to the specific disagreement about the subject.
I know we all sometimes post things we later regret, but there are tons of attacks that don't seem necessary.
I found the following post to be an extreme example of attacks, but there are plenty more on this site.
"you mentioned that you are a woman and a ms. who cares. Seems your problem is that Humble is a man more than anything else."
Really, how did you come to that conclusion when all the person did was correct a mistaken assumption about her gender. How does that support your contention that her "problem," and we don't know what her problem is, is that Humble is male.
"I love the smear routine as well. Isn't that a old politcal trick. Kill the messenger."
That's exactly what you did although in politics these days, it seems to be kill the candidate.
"Please be sure to forward this diatribe to the good doctor, you called into question. I am sure he would love to hear you opinion on his ethics."
If you feel strongly that this information should be sent to him, please do so.
"Just what we need a screeching libber."
This appears to be some sort of attack again, but I'm not sure what you mean. Is it anything like steaming liver, or a screaming fibber, or a scheming yipper? I have no idea what any of those mean either.