The comments about Chuck were offensive but they were neither "false" nor "slanderous." In fact, to call them slanderous would indicate that there is something wrong with what Chuck does for a living, and as I've posted elsewhere, I believe that what he does for a living is worthy of respect (defined by me as an honest days work for an honest days pay).

So all you have left is "unjustified." I can't really say what that means, but I think you'd be hard pressed to make that case.

I think what we really have here is a nasty argument in which one person stepped over the limits of good taste. If stepping over that line was cause for membership revocation, I would resign my membership -- because I believe that free speech is more important than good taste.

i will, however, go on record as saying that to insult anyone's legal and honest employment is offensive. (Then again, I've been paid to review strip clubs)