I think he was a plant, ie, a lib pretending to be a conservative to blacken CC's rep, as libs do by infiltrating Tea Party/Conservative rallies and then holding up ludicrously over-the-top signs. I still don't know why anyone would care enough to join a website in order to disrupt it, but I know some people do, so it's possible, and that's my hunch.
The basis for my opinion? His language for Goldberg was antiquated and just verging on the worst possible--I guess that's what makes me suspect his conservative credentials more than anything else. He knew the full, modern epithet would have been instant banning and wanted to see how far he could push the envelope here--why not, if your purpose is to mischaracterize through infiltration? Couple that with his nearly instantaneous venom toward regular posters here, and you have a definitely fishy combination.
Can't say, though, that most of us, as far as I can tell, would shrink from describing Joy the Bear as he did, or think it offensive. She's simply too uncivil herself to deserve respect in kind. Racial epithets are a whole other kettle of fish. I wouldn't describe "Reverend" Wright or Al Sharpton as he did Goldberg--and there are plenty of other acceptable, damning ways to describe them, anyway (demagogue, liar, thief, traitor, rablle-rouser, perjurer, embezzler, anti-Semite, racist, etc).
