GUEST said:

So there is the challenge. Allow discussion to take place freely here, without attacking the supporters of other candidates.

Can you rise to meet the challenge?

You have my pledge that I will not enter into any pro-Kerry dsicussions, for any reason. How about a pledge from the pro-Kerry side to not enter any discussions critical of Kerry for the express purpose of demonizing, belittling, harrassing, and otherwise trying to silence and/or discredit the people who are supporting other candidates than your man?

GUEST, I think your definition of a free discussion is a curious one. If pro-Kerry voices are not allowed on threads in which an anti-Kerry voice makes the first post, then your definition of "free discussion" is a discussion in which people who disagree with the first person who speaks are not allowed to take part. So much for your claims to be a wholehearted supporter of progressive causes; this sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Also, I am never in these discussions "for the express purpose" of belittling anyone. I think Selima, for example, is a well-meaning, intelligent person. But I think her interpretation of Edwards's actions is faulty. I didn't appreciate her allusions to "lots of information out there which you don't know but I do and it's not accessible enough for me to share," which is why I said she was assuming other people here are not well-informed. But among adults, it is admissible to disagree about things like this. I can point out these things about Selima's arguments without it being a personal attack.

Generally, you've been the one to initiate personal attacks. For example, I only attacked YOU in other threads after you repeatedly shouted "Liar!" at me because you feel that my interpretation of the word "progressive" doesn't mesh with yours. So once again, I won't take up your "challenge" to remain silent. I don't even think it's a worthy challenge, just a lame attempt to have certain threads for yourself.