l don't really give a [needless rudeness] lf l offend all of you Buffy [gratuitous insult] with my comments. The fact is, l have one view of the show while you guys have another.
said, the issue is not whether we were offended, but whether your assumptions were factually valid. You're clearly approaching this dialogue from a purely emotional point of view, so you're assuming it's strictly a matter of (vehement) opinion; but the facts are the facts no matter how strongly anyone feels about them. A responsible person will make a basic effort to understand the objective facts first and then
formulate an opinion based upon those facts. And all we're doing is informing you that you're grossly in error about the objective facts of what Buffy
are. Not about whether they were good or worthwhile shows, but simply about what kind
of shows they were. You describe them as "tweeny," which implies that you think they were intended for children age 10 to 12. That is objectively incorrect, since both shows had considerable violent and sexual content and were highly inappropriate for children of that age.
So this has nothing to do with whether you've offended anyone. It's simply about whether you have your facts straight, which you do not. If you said that Norway was in the Southern Hemisphere and a Norwegian poster corrected you, that would not be because you had offended that poster, but simply because your statement was objectively untrue. Not every conversation is about opinions and emotions. Facts are more fundamental.