<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MagMile:
DOC 2 BE,
I know this type of advice never works, yet I offer it.
Maybe you feel like everyone is against you, so your response to go down fighting. If so, perhaps you make yourself feel good in the process--you obviously enjoy a vigorous debate--but what's the point? Consider this. If there really are some anti-Semitic statements or anti-Semites in FlyerTalk land, do you think they'd be condoned. If you can demonstrate that certain individuals are anti-Semites, do you really doubt that they'd be effectively shunned here?
Instead, all of the attention has become focused on you and your arguments with different people. Why do you think that is? Is that because we're all a bunch of anti-Semites or is it because your communications style is ineffective? Is it effective to take issue with anyone who disagrees with you by, for example, making condescending statements about his/her level of education or intelligence?
Is it really so important to "prove" your points and your superiority? Or are there better ways to show that certain individuals are anti-Semitic, if that is really your cause? If you're as bright as you think you are, can't you frame the debate on your terms?
I know your instinctive response to write a point-by-point rebuttal to my post. But what is that going to achieve? (If you must, I'll let you have the last word.) Instead, why not, for example, collect a set of statements by Stimpy, with adequate and fair context, that you think demonstrate his/her anti-Semitic views?
P.S. I am by no means endorsing any allegations that anyone is or is not anti-Semitic. But I assume people are willing to stand by what they have written, as long as statements are shown in context.</font>
I do not disagree with many of your points, and as you will no doubt see, the only individuals that I am responding to are the very same one's who have been focusing their attacks upon me, and not the real perpetrators of this dust-up. I appreciate your input, but I feel that it is better to show those who are impartial, as you appear to be, that one of the tactics of those who wish to silence you is to label you something that you are not, and, I might add, by doing so, often overreach and thereby violate the rules that they claim to hold so dear. That is what dear Clement has done, above.
As for your statement about Stimpy, as I have said before, his statements pale in comparison to those that has prompted this sorry matter, but I will say this, and I know many of you will be shocked by this, but I have been mindful, that he has not tried to perpetuate an attack upon me, as others had.
As for your suggestion of my compilation of Stimpy's statements, I have done so repeatedly. You may, if you wish, review the contents of the recently locked thread in this very forum for a review of some of his more problematic posts.
Thank you for your attention.
D2B