Inflammatory Rhetoric

1. Charles replied by essentially saying that he doesn't think much about lawyers and feuds anyway. Presumably that means he is willing to forget about any such, which would be an answer to my question -- that he is not particularly against such a course of action. While a yes or no would be preferable, is is not accurate to say that he did not answer the question.

2. Useful is a relative term. I think it rather obvious that CF has been less useful (for the purpose of exchanging projects and ideas) than it would be if there were less argument and accusation going on. So I do not think Charles was being libelous here. Even if it were a false opinion stated as fact, what entity would be harmed by it in a proven financial manner?

On the other hand, accusing him of libel might (hypothetically) be actionable... I wish people would stop doing things like that. I seriously doubt Charles has any interest in suing someone over libel, but it seems rather obvious -- to me at least -- that things like libel, falsehood, and inflammatory rhetoric are incredibly counter-productive in an internet forum. I think FD could have certainly found a more neutral wording for what he just said.