And you just might be a little off the mark with that “Stalinism” charge; this is more like an Inquisition, don’t you think?

Good going, guys. After you’re done with the Stalinist purges, you can have a nice little soiree with the two or three libertarians in the country that haven’t soiled themselves by associating with anyone that disagrees with them on one issue or another.

Besides, the ID issue has been settled already.

To put it another way: I don’t care what TLF posters (or DI) believe; I care about what methods they use to advance those beliefs. One of the reasons I like TLF is that I find that by the standards of our current political environment TLF does an admirable job of advancing its point of view without resorting to methods that I find insidious with regards to our rational democratic norms. Even when I don’t agree with TLF, I come back, because I find myself edified and challenged when I come here. I have no faith that anyone who can tolerate assocation with DI’s methods will uphold (generally) those same democratic Western norms of conduct or (specifically) the high quality of discourse I expect to find at TLF.

I of course welcome Mr. Haney to prove me wrong. If he actually is an honest, well-meaning discussant*, I look forward to engaging him on telecom policy, as well as persuading him how insidious DI’s methods are to the common goals we all share, and how he should really look for work elsewhere

• as I said earlier, I don’t find his second post persuasive on that count.

1. The position of the Discovery Institute, as well as its methodology, call for a response. For too long we, as a country and our media especially, have been too lenient in the interest of presenting ‘both sides’ of issues.

2. Where, pray tell, would you draw the line with this ‘guilt by association’ metaphor? It is not as if, say Hance’s brother had been a noted advocate of Intelligent Design, I wouldn’t even bring it up. But it is Hance Haney, and Hance Haney alone, who has, of his own volition, chosen to associate himself with the Discovery Institute.

Isn’t it fair to question a politician regarding his choice of political party? Then I say, it is fair to expect those here to have reservations about Hance. I do myself.

Although one item, I would like to say is troubling me much in this issue. I had recently watched the debate between William Buckley and Noam Chomsky from 1969, and one thing I was struck by was how very civil they both were to each other in the debate. Today, we have pundits like Ann Coulter calling for those she disagrees with to be tried, and executed. Even hosts are rude to their guests now, as in this example.

So please turn down the volume, and try not to be so disagreeable when disagreeing…

My comment on pluralism apears to be too subtle for you, and I run into that a lot with fundamentalists. We live in a culture that values reason and open debate. Now there’s a little bit of a paradox in allowing those who don’t believe in reason and open debate into the debate, because they actually seek to destroy our cultural system.

So do we let them do that, or do we modify our view of tolerance to say we tolerate everything except intolerance. Either way, some fool can shout “Hypocrite” as you do.

We’re all used to that by now, so you’ve simply branded yourself an unserious person.

1. The position of the Discovery Institute, as well as its methodology, call for a response. For too long we, as a country and our media especially, have been too lenient in the interest of presenting ‘both sides’ of issues.

2. Where, pray tell, would you draw the line with this ‘guilt by association’ metaphor? It is not as if, say Hance’s brother had been a noted advocate of Intelligent Design, I wouldn’t even bring it up. But it is Hance Haney, and Hance Haney alone, who has, of his own volition, chosen to associate himself with the Discovery Institute.

Isn’t it fair to question a politician regarding his choice of political party? Then I say, it is fair to expect those here to have reservations about Hance. I do myself.

Although one item, I would like to say is troubling me much in this issue. I had recently watched the debate between William Buckley and Noam Chomsky from 1969, and one thing I was struck by was how very civil they both were to each other in the debate. Today, we have pundits like Ann Coulter calling for those she disagrees with to be tried, and executed. Even hosts are rude to their guests now, as in this example.

So please turn down the volume, and try not to be so disagreeable when disagreeing…