Bill D: Very well said. I have enjoyed participating in much of the most contentious threads, e.g. the gun thread, and found that most of the people--many of whom I share little in common with opinion-wise--are able to carry on a reasonable discussion (of course my opponents always resort to pat answers and stereotypes ;-) but still recognize the rights of others to dissent and argue in good humor). I even tip a pale ale with one of them from time to time--he can't spell worth a damn, but he's good company. I used to have bitter arguments with my older brother (he died in November; I've mentioned him before on this forum. he's the one who went on a cruise with Rush Limburger). My wife and his would watch in embarrassment--but we always put the argument aside and otherwise had a great relationship. It's when the arguments become ad hominem that they become intolerable, when one person feels he must attack the other rather than his argument. And the above named character rarely argues to the subject, often to the opponent's supposed flaws.

And Catspaw: your post got me thinking of an old sixties saying: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" This, of course, I saw as the most reasonable approach to the situation you described: "What if the Klan gave a rally and nobody came?" And, of course, what if somebody flamed and no one responded. I've resolved to continue stating my opinions but to ignore personal attacks and refrain from striking back. My experience is that it is not easy to do, sometimes, but when I have flamed back, I've had momentary satisfaction but lasting shame. --seed