Thank you TIA for making the point that there are perfectly appropriate uses of anger and angry language. To suggest that people with great dedication to stopping violence in this world who choose to use black humor and irony and satire and parody to do it, should be labelled with the sort of provocative and inflammatory language as we have seen used here, is very wrong. It is especially wrong when it is being done by people smugly claiming to be morally superior because of 1) religious affiliation; 2) spiritual beliefs; 3) rigid adherence to highly idiosyncratic fundamentalist and/or absolutist personal philosphies about what constitutes moral correctness.

If we are all on the same side, then why are these rigid believers in love, peace, and harmony so busy passing negative moral judgments on their allies, hmmmm? Could it be they are really DOING anything--taking any positive, right action, to go a long with their lofty, moralistic thoughts?