I read it as a comment about name calling in general.

I disagree with your assessment of Hammered's comments however. He pointed out the inconsistency in reports about police in riot gear. Fair enough. Then for some reason he was compelled to post the following:

As a side note, work would be the activity by which one makes a living, an occupation. I mention that because I know some are unfamiliar with the word. Too bad you couldn't put a clause in the code of conduct that prohibits the fine people of the camp from not only drinking, using drugs, stealing, and having forceful sex inside the camp, but outside as well.

The tone and content of this "sidebar” are designed to illicit responses such as “Hi troll” and “You, sir, suck.” Hammered was intentionally and unnecessarily inflammatory.

I don't know Hammered's past and it makes no difference in this instance, at least to me.

Then you are obfuscating your agenda. Hammered has appeared in the past with similar rhetoric and passed off actual attempts at dialogue. What you seem to be demanding here is for Rob to keep trying to play an album on a broken record player. Until hammered is mystically infused with some sort of empathy regarding the denizens of Camp Quixote attempting to converse with him has proven to be a very literal example of tilting at windmills.

From what was written there is a discrepancy between two opinions regarding the police and how their demeanor and dress. It was a legitimate discussion point, and was disregarded.

There's a book on OlyBlog dedicated to Camp Quixote. It's there so that people have a source for educating themselves regarding the Camp and it's accumulating history. All of hammered's talking points are addressed there, so as Rob said, it comes down to you either believe hammered or you believe people who were in the camp.

What I didn't do was hold forth my opinion as fact. I put forth Rob's words and attitude as fact, and then made a subjective judgment regarding what Rob said. There is a difference and you would do well to keep that in mind.

You're exactly right; there is a huge difference. So let us review what you did indeed type: "(n)ow personally I don't care if he calls names or not. I don't care if he calls me names or not. It only reflects on him. I do point it out because it is a demonstration of his character." Oh, how strange. I only see a subjective qualifier about whether or not you care about Rob calling people names. Other than that, I see a bunch of declarative sentences. So is the subjective necessarily implied? And if you're arguing for that gray wiggle room in your language, then why on earth are you demanding people respond to things you regard as legitimate questions when outside of that one-time vacuum they become illegitimate? To be honest, your attitude regarding this conversation (refusal to consider outside factors in your analysis and your line of questions, for example) reeks of projection to me. Call me crazy, but you questioning Rob's agenda immediately sounds off the b.s. klaxons in my head. Maybe your unconscious is aware of your agenda and simply releases it in accusations of others...?