...I am not at all impressed by ad hominems, sanctimonious preaching, and reproached that I am not toeing in the party line, I just click the delete button.
==========================
Which is fair enough but I invite you to consider the following...
It's my observation that Wojtek-post inspired outbursts seem to be fired off by a predictable set of triggers:
* honest misunderstandings of your larger intent * manifestations of the denunciation impulse * honest anger because of phrases you re-use which read rather close, at first glance, to WSJ editorial page style rhetoric
In this thread for example, you wrote:
My chief complaint is the anti-institutionalist, anti-government rant that thoroughly permeates the political discourse in this country. On the right, it is the government killing private "entrepreneurship" (read: cheating and looting); on the left it is the government opressing "da people" (read: derelicts and delinquents). Two sides of the same neo-liberal, individualistic, me-firts, anti-social coin - that gets on my nerves lately almost as badly as fundamentalist religion does.
...
It's easy to imagine a reader - perhaps someone new here - having a little or a lot of sympathy for what appears to be your overall point then coming across this -
"on the left it is the government opressing "da people" (read: derelicts and delinquents)"
and wondering whether or not you're saying there are no people being oppressed, or, the only people being 'oppressed' are "derelicts" who deserve their discomforts due to poor choices and so on.
I've found it very easy to predict which of your posts will attract the most ad hominems, reproaches and "sanctimonious preaching" by noting how heavily weighted your contributions are by stylistic choices such as what's found in the above example.
In other words, the issue isn't always as straigtforward as your glacier cool rational clarity vs. the emotionally charged pig headedness of out-of-idea lefties; sometimes, it's just the interesting combination of hammer strike bombast and vagueness (in defining precisely what is contextually meant by the use of words such as "derelict", for example) that pops up so often in your comments on the American scene.
.d.