Oh. Well, my apologies to whichever, then.
Not that it matters however. Granted someone opened that door, but then he went in and shit on the floor. To me a little crassness is fine - but there are limits. Violent sexual imagery with a request to visit a member at their home address has an odor of implied threat and is not something I want to wade through. That he hasn't been talk to about this is pretty troubling. I'm not completely sure about wintler or barracudas genders but if they are women and I assume that Jerky is a man it is even more vile (not that if they are all men or women it is a pass). It is kind of ironic that Jerky is CW's most outspoken advocate also. It seems members who have troubling deciphering where the lines of appropriate discourse are have a common cause as the RI nation goes to the polls.
I don't totally agree that it doesn't matter who it was addressed to. For stuff that's clearly assaultive and nothing but that, it doesn't. (Or clearly topical and nothing but that, obviously.)
But you can't mandate that people not have personal feelings about themselves and others. And it would actually be a bad idea to mandate that they not express them. Personal feelings are necessary. Useful. Important. Inseparable from life and liberty. And since that includes anger, the non-chronic, occasional expression of personal anger is a useful, important thing that's inseparable from life and liberty, QED.
It kind of goes without saying that good personal conduct is generally a plus, and that violent overtones are generally a minus because they're somewhat threatening in themselves, even when not actionable. But to some extent, everybody is always basically guessing about what's going to constitute good conduct and/or meaningfully violent overtones, as far as the other party is concerned.
I mean, loosely speaking, everyone judges that by a reasonable-person standard. But that's not a fixed thing, it's circumstantial/cultural. So sometimes it includes who said it to whom.
I also don't think your suggestion about Jerky in the last line there is fair. He's not typically given to saying ugly, insulting things. So he doesn't really have a reason to fight for that right. He likes and appreciates Canadian_watcher enough to be willing to fight for her. That's a good thing, not a bad thing, whether he does it perfectly or not.
FWIW, imo, the real question is always "Does this silence discussion and inhibit free expression?" and not "Is this an insult, or hurtful, or a personal attack?"
Because if you're erring on the side of more expression, sometimes that means hurt feelings even without insults, unfortunately. Is my point.