i think you and i define hostile differently. i like what webster has to say on the matter.

that sure is a lot of angry typing for someone who is trying to be an author-ity on peaceful morality. you may want to reexamine whether this is a path of effective communication. you do seem to be quite certain that you KNOW something. it is a shame that you are so busy yelling at me with your keyboard to get it across.

after reading the post for the fourth time, and the comments, again, to make sure i didn't miss anything, this all strikes me as something that i might have written 15 years ago, when i was a much angrier, younger man.

you are correct, i don't actually know you, to guess what is in your mind. did it occur to you that others may not be as ignorant as you imagine, either? on what basis would you assume that i don't know how to recognize the importance of clearly defining a moral code or philosophy that is absolutely transparent in its path of thought progression? this is what i have spent half my life doing. i've studied every religion, spiritual practice, philosophy. science, and any other methodological approach to understanding how and why humans do what we do, that i can lay my hands on. i am not the one who is getting overly excited about something which was to be expected. the fact that people are celebrating the death of someone who caused so much pain and suffering, is not in the least surprising to me. your title question is one about which i have not the least doubt as to the answer. i am not shocked, confused, or even frustrated. i understand and accept it, as i understand and accept your frustration at watching others do what you think you would not.

i ask, sincerely, what sort of example do you think you have presented, here, that would elicit the response of a desire to read more of this kind of writing?