??" It is very important to the ethos of a place like this that bigotry of the Keith/Ake/pete variety is directly confronted so that, to outsiders, the place itself doesn't look bigoted."

How is invective better than clear, concise reason to show that 'the site in general' disapproves of certain attitudes & bias? I have argued for 10-12 years here against guns, politicians, astrology, climate deniers, conspiracy theories, gay-bashers, holocaust deniers, unreasonable religious claims.... and misuse of "folk"... but *I* think that a moderate **tone** in style says more about the site itself than ripping them with invective.... but some in... , but not limited to, the UK, seem to disagree. It seems to be a point of pride with some that they can 'dish it out', like those who take pride in having lots of fist fights. (Maybe because I was a skinny kid, I learned NOT to fight much.)

....and by the way.. I put Keith, Ake and Pete in 3 very different categories as I dispute them... and I don't consider any of them to be 'stupid'. Obstinate...sure... Bigoted? Maybe... but it is not clear to me that simple bigotry in involved. I just see them as wrong, mistaken, misguided, careless in logic and ill-informed on some things. THAT I can deal with. I simply do-not-argue with those I think are stupid or filled with hate... that sort are beyond reason. (I sometimes leave comments in 'neutral voice' condemning a point, but without naming names... as you may have noticed.. ☺)

I don't expect everyone to parrot MY style, but, boy, it would be nice to see some less rancorous debate around here.