Ouch! Antisemitic, and disingenuous all in one post. Don't worry eve he is always this flattering. It is his way of saying that he disagrees. I have wondered if using 'disingenuous' might be an attempt to stop people from evaluating the arguments of his debating opponents on their own merits (if so how ironic) but who can tell? In another thread I'm still holding off on answering wondering whether to be totally blunt and adopt his tone in response or if I should be more polite. And no I don't have a link. I think it was newspaper or TV. Sorry.

I suspect that this argument is going nowhere. The only participants are likely to be you and possibly Eve, with the question of whether the obviously antiSemitic remark that she was glad that the "French Jew Lustiger" wasn't selected was indeed antiSemitic being one of the central bones of contention. Therefore, unless I see something new that really requires a response, I suspect that other threads and other audiences on this topic will be less a waste of my time. One thing we can stipulate to: you ARE being ad hominem. But you raise various justifications -- first that you were coming from another thread and didn't have time, and now merely the 'reflection' argument, the phenomenon of horseshit, about as old as any song in the book. (see my discussion of PHAWYSI -- acronym for privileged horseshit ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT in the earlier discussion of Khallid Abdul Maurice Templesman Muhammad and his much exploited antiSemitic remarks). You justify the ad hominem approach on the pure presumption (without being specific) that my approach is ad hominem, and then avoid the questions and arguments issue on the grounds that being ad hominem is the ONLY issue you're addressing in here. Let's explain two things: an ad hominem approach is one that argues about the person rather than the arguments. Arguments CAN be disingenuous, or even antidemocratic, but one needs to address the ARGUMENTS and WHY they are as characterized, rather than merely engaging in name calling. You repeatedly fail to see the distinction, like someone who fails mechanically to distinguish (another common problem) between critique and bashing. Presumption is when you simply assume what you are trying to prove without arguing as to why -- working precisely from specific points and logic, rather than tagging an argument, eg, merely an "educated guess". Indeed, at some level one could claim that about ALL types of arguments, including the most valid, on issues such as those in this forum, to be mere "educated guesses". To the extent one could characterize my claim of disingenuousness as a reasoned conclusion, it fits that bill; the reasoning is nowhere addressed. I am not sure how the point about bluntness will be clearer in some other thread. This point did not make sense to me. Now we get back to the presumption that 'disingenuousness' is to be treated as a mere insult. This is accomplished by tagging it a mere "guess" when in fact I argued with precision as to WHY the arguments were disingenuous, arguments that in several responses you have never tried to address. And no I do NOT take her responses at face value (your argument). That is silly. Even when I have put forward more detailed responses, eg, on the charge of being antidemocratic, you have evaded the arguments while rejecting my rejection. I on the other hand ADDRESSED her arguments as to WHY the antiZionism segue did not suffice and WHY the characterization cannot be reasonably palmed off as merely a "neutral" statement of fact. By "proves incorrect" you in effect refer only to her denial and your acceptance of it. Well Trent Lott and a chorus of protestation tried to deny that his remarks were racist, but that didn't change anything, because others had access to the discourse and could call them on it. The same arguments apply to your claim that what you tag as my "educated guesses" were insufficient -- you never address the arguments as to why I reach the CONCLUSION, not presumption, that I did. All the claims about ad hominem boil down to the mere presumption that there were no substantive arguments, yet at the outset Bates suggests that he is ONLY addressing that issue, thus again evading the substantive arguments which I raise in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY POSTS. Merely responding with ad hominem argument isn't even an argument actually, merely, like all horseshit, intrinsically nothing but presumption. You ask "how ELSE" can someone make the point? Plenty of ways, one of them being to make substantive arguments to contrast with the purely ad hominem approach. The better question is, how ELSE can you put forward an argument when you have no substance to your claims than to revert to avalanches of horseshit?-- and indeed the latter is a very effective method when substance is lacking, which is why it is so ubiquitously used. It is a way of raising a presumption that some umpire, like a Tory judicial machine in the US, can rubber stamp positions without having to subject them to rational debate or to public judgment of the "raw" information -- that is indeed the paramount PURPOSE of such horseshit 'reflection'. The rest of your 'arguments' such as when I quote a number of actual unsubstantiated characterizations of yours is merely to presume the same problem true of me -- an "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach. The presumption that such points are merely 'do as I say not as I do' is exactly the perfect embodiment of the ad hominem approach, yet you use the idea that such an approach is merely reflective (itself a presumption) to allow yourself to do that. As for the letters you skimmed, you quote a single line (after all, he started out quite hostile) without explaining what he was talking about. I asked him how he had gotten hold of my document and he thought I was merely suspicious and said "calm down". I then explained that I was not and he accepted my explanation -- a contextual point that you evade, with of course the excuse that you were only 'skimming'. But if you are going to accuse someone of hot-headedness (revealing that in the 'I was addressing Eve' item you WERE addressing me in the third person) then you SHOULD think of the context, including how the issue played out. As for the "I was addressing Eve" you here use an old technique of argumentative scam -- addressing yourself to one person with your critique of another in the third person. It is something like a scholar who dismisses their leading rival's position in a mere footnote. Of course I understand that you were addressing yourself to Eve -- again pointing out the obvious, as in other instances I have raised in previous postings, refutes nothing. On the antidemocratic issue, your phony retraction is matched only by the lack of argument underlying it. Nowhere do you point out what is idiosyncratic about my approach to democracy, or why a worldwide organization of progressive Catholics on the issues I have emphasized to openly protest -- challenging both those who oppose the positions AND those who support them but oppose raising public protest about them -- is in any way other than a democratic approach that Martin Luther King would have no problem with. You merely assert without substantive argument that it is either antidemocratic or only 'idiosyncratically' democratic without ever raising the substantive argument as to why. As to "THE" dictionary definition of democracy, anyone familiar with dictionaries knows there is no THE definition of a word like that, and therein lies a problem I specified earlier. I cited the source of the kernel of my definition but then expanded on it -- completely NONidiosyncratically. Again, your approach is merely to presume what you are arguing and then repeat it or build upon that assertion as if you had proven it, though you merely assume it. Such is the argumentation tactics of ANTIdemocrats, including fascists, copperheads, and Bush Republicans. You sound like John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Veterans for Slime, if I may indulge myself a characterization. Overall, my letter to the NY Times had to be kept brief. There is not a SINGLE suggestion in any of my postings at this site at any time that is inconsistent with its suggestions or spirit. I stand by every particular I have suggested. NOTE THAT IN ARGUING THAT I AM OTHER THAN DEMOCRATIC IN THE SENSE THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING AND HIS CLOSE COLLEAGUES, MANY OF WHOM ARE STILL LIVING, WOULD FIND COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE BY DEMOCRATIC STANDARDS (whether they would consider the tactics the right ones I don't know for each case) YOU NEVER SPECIFY A SINGLE TACTIC OR MEASURE "FROM THE OTHER POSTINGS" THAT IS PROBLEMATIC BY DEMOCRATIC STANDARDS. You seem to assume that 'confronting' liberals who don't want to speak out on issues where we agree on the goals is somehow undemocratic, when it is exactly what democratic activism is about, much of the time. Incidentally, how much experience do you actually have with democratic grass roots activism?