This is obviously good advice–like the rest of your post–but FWIW, to simultaneously defend myself and agree wholeheartedly, that’s exactly what I feel like when someone says I calling them lazy or stupid: that they’re putting words in my mouth and telling me what I mean, rather than what I actually said. My problem is largely, I think, here on this board, one of perception over intention. Not to say that it’s not my fault; consensus speaks louder than words. But ninety-nine percent of the time, it seems to me, that people bristle at what they perceive behind my words, rather than the words themselves. Again, my fault, because I usually think I’m clever enough to communicate on more than one level, and often mean to imply something–usually with a humorous intent, cept when I’m really pissed off (and then it’s still humorous, ridicule-like)–and hoping that everyone will interpret my “layers” exactly as I intend them too is pretty arrogant on the face of it, unless you’re James Joyce or Kate Bush. Anyway, this is meant more as an elucidation and agreement, and not so much as a defense.
Miller, I did become very angry in that Verhoeven thread, which on rereading still seems mercilessly and maliciously hijacked by arrogant nosethumbers–a serious discussion is quite literally impossible on these boards because no matter how civil you are, you WILL be shouted down and hounded closed by Heinlein fans–but my first polite request that the raspberries be, please, saved for a different thread followed such drivebys as “[RikWriter:] Verhoeven is a talentless hack who isn’t worth considering, much less reconsidering.” My initial responses to you were as considered and measured as your own initial contributions. But when people started trumpeting that they had every right to shout down the debate because it was a public board, and my polite request was dishonestly portrayed as my dictating the content of the thread, rather than a simple friendly appeal–not a demand–well yeah, I lost it. Of the regrettable things I’ve done on this boards, that’s near the top. I still feel *emotionally * justified, but I did not handle it right.
Which brings me to the whole bristling at my suggesting a little effort thing; Verhoeven naysayers, for example, interpreting that as an accusation of laziness (putting words in my mouth). As I mentioned recently in another thread, all I mean by that is: this film required a lot of effort on *my * part to reach the understanding, such as it is, that I’m trying to explain. That a concerted *effort * might be more revealing than a cursory glance. There’s nothing at all arrogant, condescending, or accusatory in that. At ALL. It took more work than most films for me; maybe more work on your part would be rewarding. I never suggest that, having seen it once, you SHOULDA GOT IT, and you’re stupid if you didn’t. NEVER. Again, my fault because the response is not unique to any one person.
Dooku, I thought I had acknowledged that calling Microsofties names if I expected their help was stupid. If not, I apologize. In any case, it never occurred to me that a 'Softie would respond; I was picturing legions of people like me who were equally frustrated and had found workarounds to the problem that was frustrating me. In my work with a Seattle radio station, I have come in contact with many, many 'Softies, and have never had any kind of prejudice toward any particular individual. I’m sure that if I met BillG, I’d have a more personal regard for him than I do now. The frustration I expressed was with the collective monolith known as Microsoft (or, in Seattle, as The Evil Empire). Still, it was inappropriate for GQ. My reaction to Manhattan had its own history: it seemed pretty clear to me that he was singling me out for petty bully type treatment; he’s a bigger asshole than I can ever hope to be. 
And come on, I was really proud of this piece of writing.
