I wasn't calling anyone in particular intolerant. I was pointing out how some people like to focus on the poster instead of what's going on in the thread
I believe that Red asked a question that I would personally feel is based on NHE's posting pattern.
Again, since there's little "meat" to the point YET (ie we don't know if its terrorism or if its just a malicious electricity geek or what) Red just wanted to point out this crucial fact which was left out of the OP.
When I see NHE post something I almost immediately try to figure out what his "angle" is. He has a track record for a posting "method".
Now in this case perhaps he just wanted to open the door for debate. Red brought the debate to him by using the same article NHE posted but NHE had cut off the counterpoint.
Perhaps if NHE were busy sowing better seeds the harvest he drew in would be more to your liking.
NHE posted a one-sided assessment of this and highlighted ONLY those things which agreed with his point. However in the same article the OPPOSING side also is presented which Red pointed out.
Again, NHE gets the responses he has programmed everyone to provide because he has set the table. He wishes to eat a different meal then he needs to set the table differently.
One normally doesn't just get "attacked" apropos of nothing. It is usually for a "reason".
I personally think this newsstory IS interesting and MAY VERY WELL BE an example of a dry-run "terrorist" type attack as you've seen in my posts. But Red was certainly NOT out in the weeds for pointing out how NHE had constructed the OP.
And, in a different world, where NHE didn't have a "track record" one could probably give him the benefit of the doubt.
But again, as one sows so shall one reap.