"Glad you like my McVeigh questions. The *real* point, which you missed, is that you could substitute "Islam" or "Mohammed" in for each of the questions about McVeigh.

Of course I'm concerned about the threat of Islam, because it is a genuine,

severe, and present danger to Americans. You reference my anonymity; it is

my custom on message boards (including Salon) to post my real name. I don't

do that here because the threat of Muslim retribution is all too real.

Would you like me to post examples of that or would you find that list funny, too?"

You substitute game is silly at best. As evidenced by your blithe dismissal of the many terrorist attacks committed against Americans by other non-Muslim Americans in America, I was right. You are only interested certain acts of terrorism, or better yet, certain acts of terrorism against Americans. Namely, ones that seem to fit your preconcieved bogeyman.

What's especially hilarious is your anonymity comment because, again, it proves one of my earlier points. Although I wasn't referencing your anonymity, it's absolutely amsuing that you've a) built up yourself and b) built up your bogeyman to the point that you actually think you would be in physical danger from them if you followed your suppopsed "normal" custom and posted under your real name. I'm sure Muslim fanatics are scouring the internet looking to track down anybody who says something negative about them. What a hoot! Btw, don't try and tie your potential fate to other "examples". Please, you're nobody and hating Muslims ain't gonna change that at all.

Also, I noticed that the guy in my airplane story, who was actually on the plane and posed a real threat to the passengers, was just a nut while the Muslim guy in your story, who apparently never even made it to the gate, was, of course, a senior al queda offical. Whew......

"Why is it silly to point out the differences between McVeigh and Islamic violence? I think you want to dismiss it because it is so damaging to your argument."

It's silly because it shows that you don't have any integrity and that you don't care about terrorism in general. You're just doing it as a part of a tactic to downplay the Olka. City bombing and divert attention away from other similar incidents while you cuddle with your "Islamic" violence bogeyman.

"As for the list of attacks by non-Muslims - yes, there are non-Muslim criminals. None of them threaten airlines or airports (the point of the article we are supposedly commenting on.) And how exactly does this diminish the threat that Islam poses to Americans?"

LOL. You can't even call the non-Muslim attacks terrorism or terrorists attacks. They're "just" criminals, huh? Oh so now you want to stick to airlines/airports, eh? Because we all know that airlines/airplanes weren't never threatened before Muslim extremists started up. Btw, how does Islam pose a threat to America? Certain Islamic extremists certainly do pose a threat but Isalm itself does too I suppose.

"By the way, I am truly enjoying arguing with you, K Stone, because your obvious feelings of superiority over me ("you are a nobody") make you an excellent foil. However, if you want to keep this going, you are going to have to actually answer the arguments that I present. You can start with the two questions I pose above."

Nah, superiority isn't the issue. Your basic stance is the typical argue-against-my-bad-premise tactic and, as such, they're not really arguments. More like blustery soapbox statements.

But your previous notion that you don't post your opinions under your real name because you could face deadly retribution from angry hordes of extremist Muslims is exteremly funny and sadly delusional. But you never know, a fanatical Muslim may be reading this letter section in Salon right now!!!!! and we know how central you are stopping their plan for world domination and we know how "those people" are...so it's best to be careful.