I am only arguing that those who might make that case can and should be heard with an open mind.

No. I'm sorry, but this reeks of bullshit. You have absolutely dominated this thread for two days, and you have most certainly not only been arguing that the case can and should be heard with an open mind. There have been dark intimations about how peoples " worldview will come crashing down" and this extremely disturbing statement:

<>You apparently have no problem risking millions of lives so you can be true to your ivory tower ideals. Those who have the responsibility to actually protect millions of lives need to get their hands dirty sometimes. And they do it for you. With no thanks. But they still do it for you anyway.

What does that mean, Dave? What does "get their hands dirty" refer to?

It doesn't take "balls" to type some words into a screen on a web page. Please, get over yourself.

Genocide is a grave crime against humanity. I would not commit it even if I thought it would save the planet. I would do everything in my power to save the rest - and even in that hypothetical, there was no reason to think that the only solution was genocide. There will never be a situation in reality where the outcome is clear given any set of choices. To navigate between those choices, we have our critical faculties and our moral principles.

The fact that you rushed to volunteer to murder a swath of humanity, without even pausing to consider other alternatives, says more about your morals than your "balls."

I've never heard anything about the AB in East County, but Santee's definitely known by that name, both by rednecks and others. Lotta trucks, lotta Confederate flags.

So, if I understand you... you're planning to shower on Jan 20? Do I have that right?

Andrew Sullivan: in responding too viscerally to the Warren choice, we may be throwing something very valuable away far too prematurely...

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

I ask because this is a note I hear sounded by a lot of Obama supporters whenever criticism is leveled at him. I mean, I can understand people saying, 'no, I don't agree, this is not a big deal" or "let's wait to judge." This whole line of objection, though, absolutely mystifies me, and I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that.

What is it that people think is going to happen when Obama is criticized? Is he going to disappear, like Tinker Bell? Or is he going to become a right-winger... and it'll be our fault, because we didn't have his back? Is it like a Democrat Dolchstoßlegende that's being prepared for us?

I'm at a loss. Does anyone have any insight into what Sullivan may have been referring to here?

If "gays and lesbians are [...] throw[ing] away their access to power" just by complaining when Obama gives a highly visible perch to someone who reviles them... isn't it the same as saying they have no "access to power?"

I mean if they're on sufferance so long as they don't actually say or do anything, that's a pretty powerless position, wouldn't you agree?

[wbgonne] wrote:

"The complication arises because the national executive is also specifically charged with protecting the American people."

Jebbie replied:

Please supply a reference in the Constitution where this is written.

[wbgonne]: I rest my case.

Huh?

Did you feel the question was not worth an answer, or because you thought everyone knew it, or what?

I suspect you may be laboring under a misapprehension.

GBT/Thrasher is the six-year-old little brother of UT. If you keep talking to him, he'll never go away.

He may post seventeen consecutive one-line posts, all saying the same thing over and over again, but he will eventually get bored, or hungry, or something.

I took screenshots of every time my post was up

Wow. Cool.

I took a screenshot of the Terms of Service - the "Salon reserves the right to delete any letter at its discretion" part - and faxed it to IOZ.

Why are we doing this, again?

You can post here anonymously now?

This... will be challenging.

Then why is there no "read Anonymous's other letters" link?

The two dashes before "Anonymous..." are not separated by a space as they are with our user names.

I'd go with Jebbie's surmise, at a guess. Our Anonymous did more than just hack a user name... there's someone who got into the internals of the commenting system.

And yet... it reads just like one of Electro Robot's posts.

Color me puzzled.

That's restorative justice you're talking about, but I suspect you knew that already.

Your idea of a "Coventry" (in the Heinlein sense) is interesting... and would probably be cheaper than our current penal system. In fact, even if we walled off Manhattan and parachuted Snake Plissken in there, we'd save money. I'd have a hard time figuring out who should go there and for how long, but it's still preferable to the current system.

The idea of RJ is that retributive justice (sit in a hole and rot, convict!) does nothing for the criminal, nothing for the victim, and less than nothing for the guards.

http://www.restorativejustice.org/intro - at my sig

That "--Anonymous" post last night... any chance you shot a copy of that sucker off to the administrator before deleting?

I don't suppose we'll ever get to know more about that, if it was a security breach... but it was weird. Like a cold breeze in the comments threads.