Could you explain what was "inflammatory" about a piece from The Advocate?

[Bluebear]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=389

[Skinner]

1. There is nothing inflammatory about that article from The Advocate.

It was posted a number of times on DU. In fact, I'll go ahead an post it here:

White House to Hold DADT Meeting

A White House official tells The Advocate that pro-repeal groups are scheduled to meet Tuesday with White House officials to discuss the path forward on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” during the lame-duck session following the midterm election.

“The White House is meeting with several interested parties to discuss the legislative repeal of ‘don't ask, don't tell.’ The meeting will concern the work that remains to be done to ensure congressional action on this issue this year,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The official declined to name any participants of the meeting, but sources tell The Advocate that senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina are expected to be present.

UPDATE: The Advocate has obtained a copy of an e-mail sent by Brian Bond, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and the de facto LGBT liaison, to the meeting’s participants, who include: Allison Herwitt and Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign; Shane Larson of the Stonewall Democrats; Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress; Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network; R. Clarke Cooper of the Log Cabin Republicans; Alex Nicholson and Jarrod Chlapowski of Servicemembers United; Nathaniel Frank, DADT expert, formerly of the Palm Center; and Jim Kessler of the Third Way.

More: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/26/White_House_To_Hold_DADT_Meeting

What was inflammatory was the manner in which you started the discussion. I cannot say if it was intentional or not, but your OP gave the impression that you were faithfully transcribing the title and content of the article. Which you did not.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you asked me about that warning you got a few days back. But I think this is the type of thing the moderators were referring to.

[Bluebear]

2. Thank you for answering.

I should not have been inspired by John Aravosis:

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/white-house-threatens-gay-orgs-before.html

I realize his style is read as too abrasive here.

Thanks again for your reply.

PS, on edit, kpete was inflammatory too: ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9390591

[Skinner]

3. It looks like your mistake was not providing any attribution for your post.

When you post excerpts from other sources, you are supposed to give credit.

That's why kpete's post stayed open.