Wow. Dean sounds deranged in the comments. He exploded when someone asked for, like, actual examples of Malkin being bad in the way he claimed (condemning Islam as a whole), then he moved the goalposts (where does she praise moderate Islamic leaders). And all his profanity isn't going to help open a civil debate.

His claim that he couldn't FIND examples, but could REMEMBER them in Malkin's case is laughable; that's why Google invented searching by site.

Yeah, that comment was unfortunate. I somewhat understand his frustration, as many of his commenters also move the goalposts on this argument, but it was wacky and undermines his post, which is more moderately phrased.

As far as not being able to find the references from Michelle, I will state that I've had the exact same problem, and I'm pretty good with google. happens. Shrug.

I had the same problem, too. I could have sworn that this post used to include a sentence to the effect of "let's call them what they are. Muslims." Right after:

But I stopped using the terms "Islamic fascist" and "Islamofascism" a while ago, though, because they obscure rather than clarify. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of "Islamic fascists.

I hope I am mistaken on that, BTW. Or if she changed it, it was because of good sense.

Not that the quote that's left is much better.

Bill - Or you know, maybe you can't find examples because they aren't there?

Sorry, but calling someone a 'lying traitor' and basically saying 'just trust me' for evidence does not make a good argument, "backstory" be damned.

Ryan -

read dorkafork's comment above, the one with example that Esmay couldn't find.

As it is, when I couldn't find a comment by Hewitt that I'd referenced critically (w/o link), one of my commenters dug it up within a few minutes after my post, at which point I added it.

Also, I missed where Dean called Malkin a "lying traitor." (not being particularly snarky, I'll read the post again if I'm mistaken)

And you just made that assertion without a proper cite, might I add. Does it indeed exist? :-)

He does spend a LOT of time in the comments calling people "lying traitors" and much, much worse.

Is he just incapable of making a nuanced argument?

And dorkafork's example is pretty mellow. All Michelle asks is, how common are these "extreme" views in the Muslim world? And the answer seems to be, from any number of people who speak Arabic overhearing those who assume they don't, is pretty bleeping common.

She's not asking anything, John, she's doing what she always does and covering Muslims in general with the views of Muslim extremists. Malkin's media savvy enough that she doesn't leave awful quotes laying around, but quietly bigoted things like the title to this post a couple of weeks ago are commonplaces on her blog.

The problem isn't that she's dropped any nasty sentences. Like Dean says, the problem is that she constantly makes no distinction between Islamists and Islam in general or Islamists and Muslims in general. If Michelle needs examples she might want to spend some time paging through this and this and imagining how average Muslims would feel about the way she constantly lumps them in with terrorists and their supporters and the way she equates their faith with terrorists' ideology.

Malkin and her fans would be the first to agree that only an asshole would go around saying that "Christianity" endorses blowing up the OB/GYN and "Christians" kill doctors, but they can't see why another guy and his religion should get the same respect.

Well, the "average Muslim" is free to write a letter to the editor or start their own blog if they don't like what she says.

But that's not how it works, we're finding out over the last few years, is it? Ask the Danish cartoonists. Ask Abdul Rahman, oringinally of Afghanistan, who had to flee for his life. Ask Salman Rushdie. Ask Theo van Gogh.

Wait. He's dead.

So John, you're saying that an "average Muslim" killed Theo van Gogh? To recap: You spent your first comment defending Malkin against the ostensibly preposterous accusation that she condemns Islam as a whole, yet then put "average Muslim" in mocking quotes and equate the worst murderers with them two comments later.

It's a funny semantic game we're all playing, eh?

Well, the "average Muslim" is free to write a letter to the editor or start their own blog if they don't like what she says.

Of course they are, just as Malkin is free to respondthe way she does to the racist and misogyinist email she gets from lefties. But Malkin's freedom to respond doesn't change the fact that the people who send those emails are a pack of lousy bastards for doing it, even if it doesn't get under her skin.

My point is that Malkin and too many people on the right make a habit of blackening the name and slandering the faith of decent people who have never harmed a soul. Some Muslims are Islamists. Some. Most Muslims are decent ordinary people just trying to get through life peacefully. That's hard enough for anyone, but Muslims have to keep getting portrayed as zealot murderers since Malkin and too many others on the right are too lazy and/or bigoted to give other faiths the respect they demand for Christianity.

So many of the same people constantly whine about how Hollywood portrays Christians or some imaginary war on Christmas and they can't find enough simple charity to allow that most Muslims do not support murder or to quit saying "Islam" when they are talking about Islamofascism?

Both of you, and Dean. are apparently incapable of seeing any gradation between "all Muslims are bad," which very few people say but you impute on me and Dean accuses everyone he sees of, and "a vanishingly few Muslims are bad," which seems to be Dean's position. There are many thousands of people who would have been happy to kill Theo van Gogh, and millions upon millions who would shrug it off ("he insulted Islam, the infidel. Who cares? Good for the martyr."). We have witnessed the deafening silence when such atrocities are EXPLICITLY carried out in Islam's name. The few condemnations usually have a "but..." component that makes them irrelevant ("but Muslims feel so oppressed in Europe..."; "but what about Palestine?...").

All the examples I gave happened because of the indifference of, and support of, many adherents of Islam. Only one nut actually stuck the knife in Theo, but many were only too happy it happend and celebrated, while others just shrugged. (Now his 13-year-old son is in danger.) No other major world religion, at present, has such a problem with abject, nihilisitic violence that is silently accepted by many millions and actively supported by many thousands. Shinto got over it in the mid-twentieth century, and Christianity, for the most part, got it out of its system. Any thug killing in the name of Christianity will get swift condemnation from all branches of the religion worldwide, and the amount of back-room support wil be vanishingly small. Same with Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism. There are nuts in all of these religions, and some are organized (Hindu extreme nationalists, for instance, or the Fred Phelps slimeballs). But none even approach the percentage of support within their respective religions that the Islamic fascists get from theirs.

We all know what happens when yet another Islamic nut makes a videotape, holding his Koran, before he goes off to kill as many random defenseless people as possible. "Well, you see, they were Jews. And why do you care? Did you know that 4000 didn't go to work on 9/11? Of course not, your media is all controlled by Jews...." Or "What a terrible thing that innocents died; it reminds me of what those Americans are doing daily in Iraq...." And on and on and on. Straight condemnations are rare. And everyday examples of a major pan-Islamic problem with tolerance are legion. Draw a few cartoons of Mohammed? BIG problem. Mock Christianity and Jews and others in the most vile manner on a daily basis? "Well, you see, you must understand the cultural context...." or some such garbage will be the answer. And the fact that there are no Christian and Jewish riots blasting random Muslim targets after such daily insults is mute testimony to which side has a tolerance issue.

And some people aren't willing to let these controlling fascists get away with it. So go ahead and parse Michelle's every last word. Her main message, "we will NOT submit," is her main point at the end of the day. No, not all of Islam's adherents are the enemy. But no other major world religion has this big a problem, and I see very little Islamic introspection aimed at fixing it, or even acknowledging it. ("Well, we'll change the textbooks calling Christans and Jews evil next year. Yes, we promised to do it this year, but....")

Youngster, you are obviously a "Rat Fink" for not knowing who Ed "Big Daddy" Roth is.

Both of you, and Dean. are apparently incapable of seeing any gradation between "all Muslims are bad," which very few people say but you impute on me and Dean accuses everyone he sees of, and "a vanishingly few Muslims are bad,"

John, if you've read even a smattering of my posts over the past few years, you know that assessment of me is far off target. My imputation regarding you was simply based on the logical sequence of that comment.

No other major world religion, at present, has such a problem with abject, nihilisitic violence that is silently accepted by many millions and actively supported by many thousands.

Given some of those proportions, Hinduism has a problem right now, as does Christianity in Africa (if you want to primarily identify certain folks committing violence as Christians, which I don't). But I'm quibbling: I agree with your main point that the Islamic world is an exponentially special problem child associated with an alarmingly much more destructive level of violence. I also condemn the double standard that lets those who accept the violence (for whatever "reason") off the hook. But some notable Islamic voices have unequivocally condemned violence, you just aren't hearing about them.

And you arguing this isn't telling me something I haven't considered. Perhaps Venn diagrams are in order, but acknowledging that Islam has a massive problem can be distinct from maligning it absolutely as an ideology, especially given its different expressions through history (oddly portrayed as homogeneously violent, by some).

And as I've argued about 10 zillion (and one) times, if those positing that it's a justifiably maligned and unadaptable ideology like Communism don't want to kill, convert or dominate all Muslims (which is sort of how we approached Communism, nearly exterminating it), then they aren't really offering much of a practical solution.

Especially when I believe the real solution will require co-opting non-terrorist Muslims to eliminate the radicals within their midst, something that looks kind of like Al Qaeda's 94% unfavorable rating in Iraq.

Yet despite the fact that I make these practical arguments, over and over and over, hardly a soul addresses the Catch 22 I've described or engages me on these terms; instead using the strawman (or at least implying) that my judgments are aligned with (or tacitly accepting of) some stupid moral equivalency or aggressive PC sensibility. in reality, I explicit reject extra special sensitivity that leftists give Islam. In fact, I give it about the same (or even less) respect that I give most religions. I tend to highlight positive stories about Muslims just to show that they exist.

So your familiar argument, when applied to scuffling with me, is somewhat of a distraction. Who are you exactly arguing against, given that I agree with 8.3/10 of your comment, yet still do not agree with the utility or form of blanket condemnations of Islam, nor the argumentative train that equates "average Muslim" with murderer of Theo van Gogh?

I confess, it's a mystery.

Her main message, "we will NOT submit," is her main point at the end of the day. No, not all of Islam's adherents are the enemy. But no other major world religion has this big a problem, and I see very little Islamic introspection aimed at fixing it, or even acknowledging it.

Let's see how this plays out. We've only been paying close attention for about 5 years. already some things have changed:

http://dorkafork.com/blog/?p=251

And last I checked, I wasn't submitting to anyone, except the IRS when I pay my taxes.

Who are you exactly arguing against, given that I agree with 8.3/10 of your comment, yet still do not agree with the utility or form of blanket condemnations of Islam, nor the argumentative train that equates "average Muslim" with murderer of Theo van Gogh?

I made neither that condemnation nor that argumentative train. You assume them because you wish to see them there.

Do you dispute that Theo van Gogh would be alive today had he projected New Testament verses on a woman's body? He found out the hard way that one major religion has a lot of adherents that will kill, and even more that will shrug when the murder happens. That does not condemn Islam, a religion with an over 1000 year history that includes times of allowing debates on every aspect of religion and society. Unfortunately, those times are centuries past. Islam includes many millions who just wish to better their lives, just like anyone else. Unfortunately, the constant threat of community censure--or worse--for any perceived religious misstep casts a pall over any hope of a free exchange of ideas.

It isn't only the silence of the Islamic world that's telling about such events. It's the silence of the academic world and the "free-expression" types. Every film school ought to have a scholarship in van Gogh's name by now. He DIED for his creation. (If Michael Moore had been killed by some thug holding a Bible, there would be Moore Scholarships EVERYWHERE.) Instead, his example is ignored. Fundamentalist Christians are routinely mocked in the media, which is fine; that is their right in a free society. But don't hold your breath waiting for a movie about a fundamentalist Islamic school, or an epic about Mohammed's life (which whould be a GREAT movie; what a story!). The brave keepers of the flame of free-expression are in too much fear to do anything like THAT.

And why is that?

I also agree with most of what you're saying, John. I think we're kind of arguing past each other. I'm capable of seeing plenty of gradations, but I do have a problem with gradations of bigotry from the anti-Muslim nastiness on a lot of right-wing blogs to Malkin's refusal to distinguish between Islamism and Islam at the other.

To be clear, by bigotry I mean the dictionary definition of intolerance toward others or their ideas. I'm not putting her anywhere near the moral level of a racist or anything. That said, when she routinely uses condescending quotes like "Religion of Peace", says simply "Islam" when she's talking about terror, and says simply "Muslims" when she's talking about terrorists she's doing wrong by hundreds of millions of decent, ordinary Muslims. She doesn't go around calling Islam a terror organization like that ass Michael Graham, but she also doesn't seem to think Muslims and their feelings about their faith deserve the same common courtesy as a Christian's, Jew's, or Hindu's. Malkin's a professional writer and she's plenty smarter than me. She should know how that looks to Muslims.

Aside from being a pretty crappy way to treat people, it's not helping us in the war on terror. Like Bill said, we cannot defeat terrorism without ordinary Muslims on our side. I'm not saying it's terribly hurting the effort, but I can't imagine things like refusing to distinguish between Muslims and Muslim terrorists or making snide "religion of peace" comments helps bring moderate Muslims to our side of the fence.

Sorry John:

I made neither that condemnation nor that argumentative train. You assume them because you wish to see them there.

Or you may be a problematic communicator. Let's do some SAT logic association/reading comprehension prep with your comment:

Well, the "average Muslim" is free to write a letter to the editor or start their own blog if they don't like what she says.

1. Reference to "average Muslim," and how they should respond to Michelle Malkin criticizing Islam.

But that's not how it works, we're finding out over the last few years, is it?

2. Continuing the reference to how "average Muslim[s]" react, since you have not introduced a new subject. Statement sets up contradiction to how average Muslim should react, which was described in previous sentence.

Ask the Danish cartoonists. Ask Abdul Rahman, oringinally of Afghanistan, who had to flee for his life. Ask Salman Rushdie. Ask Theo van Gogh.

Wait. He's dead.

3. With still no change of subject from "average Muslims," specific examples follow: of Danish cartoonists receipt of death threats, a commuted death sentence on a Christian, a death threat on an author by Iranian fundamentalists and a filmmaker shot and stabbed with a murder note.

Logical meaning of the sentence: "average Muslims" are responsible for all counterexamples to proposition of how they should react, including the brutal murder of Tho van Gogh.

I follow with:

Who are you exactly arguing against, given that I agree with 8.3/10 of your comment, yet still do not agree with the utility or form of blanket condemnations of Islam, nor the argumentative train that equates "average Muslim" with murderer of Theo van Gogh?

And you claim:

I made neither that condemnation nor that argumentative train. You assume them because you wish to see them there.

Now we can argue until the cows come home about the nature of Islam, etc. And we've already established that we agree on a lot and disagree about some things.

But what I will not countenance - not accept being characterized as making things up out of thin air - is you weaseling out of the very distinct logical construction of your comment. It's oddly dissonant to not understand how those constructions very clearly lead to my interpretation.

You may not "mean" that, and you have clarified it to an extent in subsequent comments, but the idea that I'm imagining the meaning of that comment is a joke. If you do not accept that this interpretation is logical, then there is no point debating with you.

As for this:

Do you dispute that Theo van Gogh would be alive today had he projected New Testament verses on a woman's body?

Of course not. I agree about 99.9% with the rest of your comment. You are still wildly missing the point. Condemning psychotic radical murderers and even levying significant criticism at Islam's unique pathologies that create them is not necessarily the same thing as saying that Islam is an immutable force for evil, or commonly using phrases like "the Religion of NOT Peace, But Psycho Murder." Pointing out how academics and leftists give Islam and its radicals a free pass does not need to descend into the opposite, like saying "Mohommed was a murdering child molester."

Again, you are swinging at shadows, arguing points that I overwhelmingly agree with. But the Muslim Air Force chaplain featured two posts above this one has about ZERO in common with Theo van Gogh's murderer, or the demographic cancer of unassimilated, radicalized Muslims in Europe.

And I never argued he did. (He sounds like a good-humored, thoughtful guy.) But you take parsing to a Bill Clinton extreme. I'll put in section breaks in the future. Or maybe I'll diagram my sentences (do they still do that in school?).

My point was simple: the "average Muslim" can (and, sometimes, does) send letters to the editor, etc. when offended. But when attention is called to an alleged offense against Islam, the risk to the offender is MUCH greater than to an offender of any other religion. That's because there are many, many extremists willing to kill for Islam, and many, many more who shrug when it happens.

Where is the average Muslim in this? Watching, and staying out of the way, at best. Watching and nodding, at worst. I hope it's the former. But the Islamic media (check MEMRI) and the rarity of any obvious introspection in Islamic circles on these issues is not encouraging.

If you want to see witches everywhere, you will. And (as I well know from being on a liberal campus) if you want to see bigots everywhere, you will. But you're shooting a strawman with a flamethrower here.

Clinton parsed sentences to eliminate their obvious meaning. I parsed yours to illustrate what the obvious meaning was. In that sense, my explanation to you was more like me explaining to Clinton that "sexual relations" do in fact include "oral sex."

Someone here is "Clintonian" indeed.

If you want to see witches everywhere, you will. And (as I well know from being on a liberal campus) if you want to see bigots everywhere, you will. But you're shooting a strawman with a flamethrower here.

My point is very clear, with specific examples and distinctions, not strawmen.

I think we're at an impasse, and thus, pretty much done. (before this devolves into insults instead of dialogue. Now let's go have a soda.)

I think Dean's problem is a difference of strategy; and a rabid defense of his in opposition to all others.

My Premises:
1) The more despicable practices attributed to "Islam" by some are in fact radical Islam (Isamicists, whichever terminology you prefer). The Terrorism, cutting off heads, etc. fall into this category and don't directly reflect on all Islam.

2) There are some Muslim voices speaking out against violence. Not as many as I'd like to see, but there'd need to be a billion plus to make me happy; so this is expected.

3) Countries that have Sharia (Islamic Law) have numerous laws that in and of themselves are bad. Not terrorism level bad; but killing gays, people who convert from Islam to Christianity, women who get raped without 4 eyewitnesses, etc. isn't a good state of affairs.

It's #3 where Dean disagrees with me (and calls numerous people traitors).

Many (myself included) are of the "free speech; shine a light on what you don't want; exposing it and shame will help end it" school of thought. These problems aren't something I think countries should be invaded for, but they're certainly not a good sign.

It also isn't only "radicalized Islam" responsible for these; unless we've got completely different edfinitions of this term. On the Radical - Liberal slider this isn't entirely at the radical side, but closer to the middle of the bar for Muslims. Disappointing, but somethines the truth is; now are there countries/societies/people who are Islamic and are also against these? Yes, but again not enough (as we saw when Pakistan couldn't get the law changed).

I do believe (as I suspect Bill, Dean, etc. agree) that this needs to be changed and isn't appropriate. It's not the biggest problem in the world, but we don't focus solely on the biggest problem all the time; so we can diversify a bit (in my opinion).

However Dean seems to believe that this sort of criticism of problems with Islam in general; especially at a time when there are more severe and drastic problems with "radical Islam" is encouraging people to conflate these disagreements inappropriately.

So far, I can see the concern that this could occur, but I don't agree that this should promote silence of problems with Islamic countries, laws, etc.

Thus, by Dean's logic; I am a traitor to the Aliies of the USA (and the USA by asociation), a F***ing traitor and he hates my G*d-d*mned guts, and an Islamophobe of the first order. So, there's a rational discussion.

To quote Dean responding to the follwoing statement:
I happen to consider some Muslims as our allies in the war on terror. Reluctant allies and few to be sure, but allies nonetheless. - TWM

It speaks for itself. You're an Islamophobe all right. - Dean

Apparently this is sufficent to force Dean to get frothy at the mouth. To believe that Muslims might be reluctant allies in the GWOT. Heck, the French are reluctant allies in the GWOT too, does that show racism, or a view of what France has done (and not done)?

Am I a Francophobe as well? Heck, I think White Supremecism is bad as well (in general, not just in a radicalized form). Label me a Naziphobe too.

I'm certainly not going to apologize for stating the truth as I see it, and I'm not exactly happy with one side of the argument going straight for "f***ing traitor"

I wonder if Dean is willing to give a pass to Communism in general as well, because it was obviously "radical Communists" responsible for all the death and destruction fomented by that ideal. Or if the fact that some Communists were against what USSR was doing during the cold war meant that general dismissal of Communism was somehow a Commie-phobic; because it was just a few radicals and not the ideal in general.

Oh, I'd also wonder if disagreements with Communism in general should have been silenced to avoid all Communists being conflated with the enemy; and if someone made a general condemnation of Communism would that be the act of a traitor as well?

Way to ignore what I said in my last post.

Go on parsing. It's fiddling while the Western World burns.

How did I "ignore what [you] said" when I explicitly told you that I agree with about "99.9%" of your previous comment, which made largely the same points as that one?

For the last time: our dispute is not over condemnation of ridiculous political correctness, or even the existence of problems within Islam that you describe, it is over the judgment about the degree to which the religion is deterministic in those problems, as well as the line where rhetoric should or shouldn't make distinctions when attempting to describe these problems.

You keep making the case for the former two, over and over, while I keep restating my problem with the latter pair (over and over).

Failing a sudden improvement in your reading comprehension or my communication ability - to a point clear enough to avoid this repetitive circle - read Eric Sheie's post that I linked today: it almost perfectly addresses the disconnect that you and I are having right now.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/004079.html

Now how about that soda? You know, while the Western World burns?

sigh
if u want malkinisms on muslims just go back to the great cartoon apocalypse.
i think...the thing that she did that revealed her as islamophobic was her behavior during DPW.
she went apeshit.
stupefying islamophobia.
and harmful to the WoT for just silly reasons
next, when dean asked if hotair could solicit a muslim co-blogger, malkin instead recruited mr. islamophobia himself, robert spencer.
i hate that guy.
what is he good for?
he just regurgitates jihaadi logic from the qu'ran, validates their reasoning.
if he had any nads at all he would be digging up quranic quotes that contracdict the jihaadis.
there he was, gloating and smirking about another 1000 death threats for the pope. just another cheerleader for the clash of civilizations.
which u can bet he wont be fighting...
he'll just write another book for the two-digits.
stupid enough to pay someone to scaremonger u.
cretins.

Look, I like your blog. I've visited for a long time. I loved the ethnology of moonbats. You introduced me to Ghost of a Flea, which is now a web-stop for me almost daily (even when he goes on about Paris Hilton).

What I don't like is being called a bigot, especially after clarifying my opinion at length. After that, you basically said, "yeah, but let's go parse your really short, earlier comment in the worst way possible. That's more fun. You slimy bigot."

Then you end by basically saying you're still a bigot, now let's go grab a soda. Well, that's not friendly talk where I come from.

Drop the hair-trigger on the bigot crap, and I'll be happy.

(And it's POP, dammit. I'm from Michigan.)

Look, I like your blog.

Thanks.

What I don't like is being called a bigot, especially after clarifying my opinion at length.

Quote me calling you a bigot.

My analysis of your quote simply displayed what a rational person could (would) interpret your comment to mean: an equation of "average Muslims" with the killers of Theo Van Gogh, which you claim is preposterous. This has only indirect implications of bigotry, with direct implications to how the Islamic world is viewed in light of terrorism.

Yet tou state, unequivocally, that I've called you "a bigot." AFTER, I explicitly said that I agree with 99.9% of your other comment. I guess I called myself "a bigot" as well.

To top it off ...

In a subsequent comment, I note that your further comments clarified your opinion.

Yet now you claim that I called you "a bigot," (specifically false) claim that I don't recognize the clarification (specifically false), and get defensive.

I don't have time nor patience to argue like this. Thanks for reading, may you find greener pastures, free from the spectre of perceived insult.

Have a good night.

Apply your own parsing to the long comment of yours with all the bolded "average Muslim" phrases.

Logical meaning of the sentence: "average Muslims" are responsible for all counterexamples to proposition of how they should react, including the brutal murder of Tho van Gogh.

If that's not calling me a bigot, I don't know what is.

When I wrote the short comment that you took off on, I was in the middle of helping my company write a proposal to DoD for a new way of helping our guys not end up dead (I can't give more details). The comment wasn't perfectly written. I was reacting to someone taking off on Malkin for basically not phrasing things in PC terms 100% of the time, while studiously missing the larger point that the voluminous stories she relates--many of Islamic-based aggression that the MSM finds convenient to ignore. A headline of "Muslims attack Christians" in Nigeria (I believe that's one Dean objected to) does NOT imply "All Muslims attacked Nigeria's Christians." It does say that sectarian violence is the issue in the article without a long PC headline ("A bunch of guys claiming to be Muslim but acting counter to the Koran attacked Christians"). The main problem here is that people are being killed for no other reason than going to church; Malkin's choice of headline for that is inconsequential compared to that.

Bottom line? I think insensitive headlines on Malkin's site are the least of the problems for the Islamic world; there are far larger internal problems with basic tolerance of other viewpoints and religions. Yet that was Dean's target (and, at first, with zero examples). And then you take one of my comments and do a long, drawn-out study of how bad it is, and never mind that the interpretation doesn't square with my much longer points later that explicitly say "Islam HAS a problem," not "Islam IS the problem." You want me to say I phrased it badly? Fine, I phrased it badly. But when I explained what I meant in more detail, you insisted your interpretation was the only possible one ("Let's do some SAT logic association/reading comprehension prep with your comment."; never mind the inherent ambiguities in written English, without which lit crit would not exist) and there was NO GOING BACK NOW. Gotcha! Well, you win. Me bad. What have you gained? What new insight into the threat we face have we gleaned?

Well, I've learned my lesson: be on the lookout for INARTFUL PHRASES!

If that's not calling me a bigot, I don't know what is.

You made the assertion that it was delusional to get that interpretation. Thus, I was primarily establishing how your sentence gives sane people the reasonable conclusion that you equate "average Muslim" with the worst example that you provided, given that it was indeed a fairly straightforward construction and interpretation of that comment. Whether you choose to represent this as me equating you with a klansmen or a rejection of your subsequent arguments is strictly your choice.

But when I explained what I meant in more detail, you insisted your interpretation was the only possible one ("Let's do some SAT logic association/reading comprehension prep with your comment."; never mind the inherent ambiguities in written English, without which lit crit would not exist) and there was NO GOING BACK NOW. Gotcha!

After defending myself from the Clinton comparison, I proceeded to have a discussion with you where I agreed with "99.9%" of your clarifying comments, also clarifying my concerns. Which again, were not really all that critical or contradictory of your primary points.

I won't comment any more, because this is a waste of time (as I pointed out 3 comments or so ago, when I tried to head this off on friendly terms). Seriously, let's take a break.

Big Daddy Roth? Merely the greatest artist of the 20th century. See "The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine Flake Streamline Baby" by Tom Wolfe.

And no, I am not worthy of either comparison.

ionolsen19 Hello Jane, great site!www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

ionolsen20 HI! I love this place!

ionolsen23 I am really impressed!

ionolsen40 Best site I see. Thanks.

smqubc psnfaed ewblvkp tuvx dpxzh kambwrufq mnpkl