"Flaming","Hateful", and Emotional Involvement

I do not intent to speak more about America, since I said what I wanted
to say, but I do want to comment on something that is after all related
to language: the use of "flame", "hateful", and so on by people who took
my comments badly. To me, both flame and hateful imply a large amount of
emotional involvement which I simply do not feel; rather, I was simply
stating the truth as I felt it. I do not think that stating the truth as
one sees it is necessarily hateful even if other people find those
comments disagreeable, because the term hateful implies that you are
making the comments because you experience hate. This simply isn't the
case. I have been accused of many things before, and some of them like
"untactful", "undiplomatic" I can accept, but that is the only critism I
would accept in this case: what I said might have been untactful, but I
truly do not feel a great emotional involvement in the matter we were
discussing, except for the fact that I have an annoying habit (I'm told)
of eagerly giving my own opinion on any topic. If you look back at my
post you will see, I hope, that far from being an angry flame, I was
simply trying to correct what I saw as an untruth. If people wish to
disagree with my view on the truth then that is fine, but I do object to
me or my comments being called "hateful", or a "flame" because they were
not written with hate in my mind nor to provoke hate.

>I second that.  This is not the right place for hateful politicking.
>There are other fora for that.
>
>Greetings,
>
>Jörg.
>
>
>