Yeah, I remember that conversation on IRC. Here's the thing, though. If you and I are talking, and you point out how crappy the weather is, or how much your boss sucks, that's one thing, but by complaining about fuel-efficient parking spots forcing you to drive further to park, you aren't just venting -- you're also making a statement about a policy that you dislike. If someone else disagrees, you can't really be shocked or upset if they respond with a different point of view, and, as I recall, you didn't seem to have a problem engaging in the debate, and were also pretty passionately arguing your own position (though you're now saying it was just a joke, which certainly wasn't apparent at the time.)

Regardless of whether you were serious or joking, are the other participants in the conversation supposed to just hold their tongue if they disagree? Politely acknowledge your rant and tell you to "grin and bear it" or "hang in there"? What's the correct play?

I greatly appreciate your stance that the community should be what people make it, and what people have made it is a place where you can take any position on any issue you like, as long as you're able to defend that position. The way I see it, if someone has the time and energy to make a controversial statement, but suddenly doesn't have the time and energy to back it up when others question it, that person is a fraud, plain and simple. It doesn't boil down to a difference in "free time", it boils down to who is willing to back their opinions up with supporting evidence.