Warning: This article may be offensive to Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Marxists (both of Groucho and Karl variety), Leninists, Mexicans, Europeans, Australians, Gays, Straights, Transsexuals, Martians, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, or the American Apathy party. It may, if ingested, cause gastrointestinal distress, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, hallucinations of you and Jessica Simpson engaged in indecent acts in a hot tub in Central Park, or any other variety of ailments. If I were you, I'd just stop reading here!

I have never been "fair" or "balanced". I have never made any claim to objectivity. In fact, in discussions on certain topics, I have made it clear that I refrain because I disagree wholly with the topic at hand.

Recently, I wrote an article detailing what I believe. Out of all of the respondents, ONE took exception to what I had written. ONE. And this DESPITE the fact that I had prefaced said article with a qualifier that I was going to offend pretty much anyone, and DESPITE the fact that I never said what the respondent accused me of saying. This resulted in an answer article where the blogger in question operated under the assumption that I had, in fact, said something that I had not. When I responded, I was accused of being irrational.

Here's the kicker. I should not have to preface everyone of my articles with qualifiers to hedge against every single person I might possibly offend. I don't have the time to cater to fragile egos and consider that a homosexual left armed Lilliputian born Serbian Catholic might find something offensive in what I said, or that an ethnic minority might consider an improperly placed adjective to be sound basis for jihad. Qualifying statements take the punch out of the article, and if you read an article, ANY article, on the Internet, you should understand that you are, in fact, stopping in someone else's living room, and THEIR standards apply.

I will say this, without qualifier: if you are so insecure in your faith that someone saying something that can be heard by every Evangelical Christian preacher in this country on a regular basis, perhaps you should reevaluate your faith. To say I should excuse your answer because you were "having a moment" ignores the fact that you blatantly refused to afford me the same consideration when my qualifiers were FAR more complex than yours. It is, in fact, asking me to be a bigger man than you are.

Here's the kicker, though. I'm NOT the bigger man. I've never BEEN the bigger man. I've never PROFESSED to be the bigger man. In fact, I have stated outright on numerous occasions that I am NOT fair, NOT balanced.

I've pretty  much had it with qualifiers, disclaimers and the like. If I have to add verbiage to coerce you into reading in context, it's just not worth it.