That being said, good debate can be a great way to get along, which means taking peoples arguments in the best way possible until they give you know choice.

Look, at least with me, you have been pretty good about that. And when you haven’t you generally come back and try and re-establish dialogue. I try to do the same, I think that is fair enough. If you are ever in southern Louisiana I would love to take you out for a drink. I wouldn’t even expect you to pay for all of them. Most, but not all;^)

it’s addictive. consensus is boring. What can I say. There’s never a good reason to stretch an agreement past about eight words.

Of course sometimes you just pop off which Pogue and I never do!

Yeah. Well, every delicate mesh of creative ideological tension furthering intellectual non-partisan advancement must deal with the occasional wild-eyed zealot, dancing on the line of propriety

Seriously though, I’m grateful for everyone being reasonable people and not hostile to me personally, I think it furthers good debate and I hopefully reciprocate, but – maybe different then a lot of the blogosphere – I don’t put getting along first. I put the argument first.
Nasty names and such are bad arguments, and hostility is poor thinking, but it’s fundamentally about the knowledge and the debate, not about getting along. (Although there’s no reason why the two can’t coexist.. right?)

I was saying it tongue in cheek, but it is also true. Not a big issue, but things nag, and you are a nagger;^)

Oh, and it wasn’t a gesture. I had read Greenwald’s post before you posted it and had been following the Ohio developments for some time. I had planned to work it into a long post I am planning on this kind of thing which might seem a bit less partisan to your ears, though that isn’t the intention. It just isn’t about partisan politics, though who knows when I am finished what it will look like. You may hate it. However, that last news article caused me to just go ahead and put it out there, because who knows when I’ll finish. I am worried we may be in for some tit for tat on this kind of thing for awhile.

I will challenge you on making demands. When you post lots of evidence of right wing depravity and make complaints about the one sided nature of a particular discussion (in the sense that with all the right wing targets out there why are we focusing on this) as opposed to restricting the discussion to the particular issue, you are making an implied accusation that we are not really concerned about those other targets. Sometimes you make it explicitly.

That being said our blog is much better for having you as a reader, and I understand that you often do what I and Pogue do, which is take the contrary argument just to see it through. I did say you will note that I think you give me a fair amount of credit for someone you disagree with as often as you do (though you could give me an occasional kudo as well;}

Of course sometimes you just pop off which Pogue and I never do!

Just kidding. Seriously, all I can say is, I appreciate the gesture. I didn’t make any demands, though. It’s the natural function of your blog to present its own point of view and my function to argue and dissent. Just cause I disagree with you doesn’t mean I have to “win” just because I’m loud…

I get the implied message that I’m being a real pain in the butt, but, what can I say, I view argument as a positive state of affairs!

Then glasnost brings up something that I wanted to blog about anyway. Now while I don’t blog to get any one persons approval, if someone has been slagging on you about something you kind of feel like when you do something when you have been nagged by your wife(husband.) You get no credit because they had to nag you, but if you don’t do it it proves their point. No win.

In fact I think glasnost gives me more credit than that, but the urge not to blog about the specific issue that he brought up was there, my ;^) tag at the end not withstanding.

Still, this really stinks and so I sucked it up. I am not a single issue voter, and I cannot say who I would vote for, but this kind of think would definitely make me consider at the very least not voting for him, if not for his opponent. I guess I have been writing about this stuff because I want it to stop working, whatever the rationale, whether it is to advance a left or right (however unsatisfying I find those terms) wing agenda or candidate.

Also what Robby says. When this stuff stops working, it will stop.

Fortunately, I think we’ve been growing up for awhile, and we are probably in the twilight years of such tactics’ effectiveness. I don’t think homosexuality bothers most people as much as it used to, even among those who think it’s inherently sinful.