I have one comment re: this new policy: Good. If one cannot defend a position based on its merits, then reverting to name-calling does not - in my view- add to the betterment of the world.

Posted by Tad at September 19, 2006 08:17 AM

Argue all you want, but cut out the disparaging remarks about other commenters, authors or their motives and stick to reasoned if not passionate discourse.---GMR

But, but, ------ that's NOT fair !!

It discriminates against those of us who can't reason very well. We have our rights too, you know.

You should be apologise at once for picking on those who don't happen to share your values or conditions. We might even be considered as being " intellectually-disabled".

Yeah, that's the ticket ! Intellectually-disabled.

Instead of persecuting us you should be allowing us even more latitude since we are 'disadvantaged'. AND apologising as I said previously.

Shame, sir. Shame.

Posted by dougf at September 19, 2006 09:32 AM

Im including this comment, from the previous thread, since its relevant to this discussion. I think its grave misconduct to deliberately fasify someones position, make something up especially when whats being said is categorically untrue. Thats when a debate really crosses into slander. So here were some of my objections from which Id expect a reply from Roper

GM "You are an intractable supporter of the rioters and all your protestations to the contrary do not hide or disguise that fact"

Name me one comment that leads you to believe that I support the "rioters" in your words. I just wrote that I get upset when people in the muslim world express more rage towards cartoon and papal idiocy then war, poverty and occupation. More to the point I helped produce a statement condemning the violence for obvious moral reasons, but also because it help strengthen fundementalists on all sides of the equation, from noxious political Islamist, to war mongering cheerleaders here (sorry but i include you in that category) My position isnt too different, surprisingly, from Hitchens last article so Id expect that he too must be some sort of fan of rioting. You seem clinically unable to deal with the thrust of my comments thus resort to all out slander and lies. If you had any decency youd apologise right now for saying that Im an intractable supporter of the rioters as its a disgusting lie for which there's no evidence, expecailly since i find incidents like the attack on churches in palestine digusting. Roper youve reached a new low

Posted by Ahmed at September 19, 2006 09:52 AM

Ahmed, if anything I've said that you have agreed with, I'd be surprised. My comments comes from your incessent attacks on anyone/anything that disagree's with you vis-a-vis the Israely/Palestinian conflict, the Hezbollah/Israel conflict, the Iraqi/insurgency or the rioting of Muslims in the middle east. If you are truly offended, I'm sorry, but that is the way I see it, and nothing you have posted has led me to believe otherwise.

You also tend to couch your arguments with only a weak " i find incidents like the attack on churches in palestine digusting," which never seems to be the thrust of your arguments. Instead, your arguments tend to support the antithesis of what I post about. If that is a misunderstanding on my partI can accept that and am willing to change my mind. But until then, please explain yourself without resorting to comments such as "Roper you've reached a new low."

Posted by GM at September 19, 2006 10:14 AM

I dont remember ever posting anything here on the "iraq insurgency", perhaps you could correct me or again maybe youre deliberately making something up. Reread the post on the pope's comment, i simply posted Juan Cole's academic demolition and then proceeded to counter some of what I perceived to be your serious misunderstandings, vis a vis the historical argument. There is not one word I wrote that could imply that I'm a "intractable supporter of rioters" which is plainly a disgusting claim and a deliberate smear employed, i assume, because i disagree with you. That you refuse to cite specific evidence or support for my suppossed incitement to violence is even worse and speaks volumes about your inability to confront my actual arguments. More to the fact calling attacks on churches in palestine "disgusting" is hardly "weak" language. But, buddy, its you who has some explaining and apologising to do if you wish to maintain some semblance of decency here

Posted by Ahmed at September 19, 2006 02:10 PM

Ahmed, it does seem to be a persistent feature of your comments that you consistently veer from the issues to engage in personal attacks (which is a brief definition of ad hominem). Does it not strike you as at least a bit ironic that you're continuing to do so on the thread to a posting that states a new policy barring ad hominem attacks on other commenters?

And if you wish to engage in a discussion on the theology of Islam, please cite a solid Islamic scholar, not a pretentious apologist like Juan Cole, who thankfully was recently passed over for a faculty position at Yale.

(I really don't want to start a debate over his credentials here, since others like Martin Kramer are far more qualified than I to address this topic. For a start, go to Martin Kramer's homepage and type Juan Cole in the search box.)

Posted by civil truth at September 19, 2006 04:19 PM

comment removed by administrator ;-P

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at September 19, 2006 06:24 PM

Well my questions are directed to GM Roper who bandies around terms like etiquette and preahces respectful dialogue, while at the same time standing by out right lies. Shame. As for civil truth is youre focded pull out orientalist scholars and noted arab bashers like Kramer, who has led a campaign to ourge middle eastern studies faculties across the country, then I cant help you out too much

Posted by Ahmed at September 19, 2006 07:35 PM