No, Amos, I don't think that is the case. I think that this thing between GUEST and I has gotten to the point of being ridiculous. There is likely fault for that to be placed on both of us. I believe that GUEST is sincere in the request. GUEST is also a very good spokesperson for the point of view s/he represents. It is my opinion that s/he is wrong on the solution as she believes I am, but I think we can get by that, and turn it to productive discussion. One of the first ways to help that become the norm is to acknowledge that this isn't a contest with a winner or loser, just a discussion of positions.

GUEST, I have used terms to describe you that I will not use again. I will not question your motives, in fact I am willing to say here and now that they are honest reflections of your point of view. I will debate you, but only on the merits of your arguments as I see them. I only ask that you do the same. The Irish have a saying that can be used to describe this circumstance. It is, "To there and no further". In other words, what is past is past. I acknowledge to you that we have gone beyond what honest discourse requires and should be, and that I have been part of that. That will not lessen the passion with which I discuss things, as I am passionate in my beliefs. Can you do the same? Can you and I agree that the personal attacks on each other and others here are no longer necessary? I sincerely hope so, because I believe you to be an articulate spokesperson for the 3rd party point of view. I also consider you to have strong opinions on war that I am interested in discussing, as long as it isn't conducted as an attack on me, but rather an attack on the system you detest. If we could begin to develop a bit of respect for others views (respect does not equate acceptance), I believe these discussions could be of value to others.

I sincerely hope we can do this. I am very willing to give it full effort.

Mick