Democracy

Are you serious? I'm a relative newcomer to your comments sections, but Jim Harris has always come across as civil to me, even in the thread you linked to where you repeatedly cursed at him, accused him of racism, and referred to him as a 'malignant hemorrhoid'. In my opinion, it's you who ought to apologize, and frankly, if you don't, I doubt I'll be coming back here again.

Well, I apologize for getting under your skin. I don't think that anything that I said is really an attack on your integrity. But what is true is that nobody likes to be contradicted all of the time. There have been times when I just plain agree with you, but in an overzealous spirit of debate I haven't stepped forward to say so.

If you want an example, I at least mostly (maybe not entirely) agree with your post "Secession" that criticized Horace Engdahl, the chief administrator of the Nobel prizes. Engdahl had said that the US is too self-absorbed to deserve the Nobel Literature Prize. Engdahl could hardly be more wrong about that.

Rand,
I don't always read the comments so I am not familiar with Jim Hariss' track record. In the specific thread that you linked to, he seems to me to be civil and simply disagreeing with you on a metter of fact, whether you will ever collect Social Security. I can't see in his statements where he attacked you personally in any fasion and specifically I don't see an attack on your integrity. Obviously you do see it, I'm not suggesting otherwise, I'm just saying that I can't see it. Indeed, your the one who got personal, using the terms racist, assholish and malignant hemorrhoid. As personal invective goes that is quite original and creative, far better than the people who can only repeat the same four letter vulgarities over and over again, but I don't understand what he said that you felt justified such harsh language. As I read it, he simply and civilly disagreed with you. As I said, he may have made unacceptable personal attacks in other threads but I don't see evidence of such here.

Not to go all Randite on you, eh, Rand, but I suggest you stop asking other people what to do and just ban whom you please. This is your blog, you created it and you keep it going, it's your property. You should be able to determine who gets to play on it for any arbitrary reason whatsoever. That's all within libertarian principles.

If they want their say then they can start their own blog, nobody's stopping them. If you're getting all upset all the time over some poster, it becomes less likely that you'll keep doing this and we all lose.

End of line.

I agree with K. It's your blog, and you have no obligation to let anyone comment here if you don't want them to.

But since you do ask, I say ban him.

Are you serious? I'm a relative newcomer to your comments sections, but Jim Harris has always come across as civil to me, even in the thread you linked to where you repeatedly cursed at him, accused him of racism, and referred to him as a 'malignant hemorrhoid'. In my opinion, it's you who ought to apologize, and frankly, if you don't, I doubt I'll be coming back here again.

There's a significant history here. Being superficial civil doesn't excuse the numerous insults Jim has inflicted on Rand and others. Jim has been extremely condescending (when he expressed "concern" about Rand's health care after Rand mentioned he was looking for work), has repeated made off topic comments (a strained or unrelated political comment is a classic move), and tenaciously argues his points even in cases when he's clearly in the wrong.

The "malignant hemorrhoid" episode comes from Jim's attempt to tie the illness of P.J. O'Rourke (who is suffering from a malignant hemorrhoid) and a remark O'Rourke made about the "heroism" of US soldiers with some sort of "heroism" of journalists. He goes from that to quote a Paul Newman slam against Republicans. I know not how that was supposed to be related.

It seemed to me at the time to be an insincere attempt to dirty the thread with irrelevant political commentary. And it still does, even with the wisdom of some time. This is a typical Jim Harris tactic.

Rand, it's tough. You provide a valuable service here, just maintaining the blog -- which costs real money, not to mention time and effort -- and putting up thoughts which quite clearly provoke a number of discussions that your commentariat finds interesting, even compelling.

But no one hardly ever mentions that fact, or says thank you for getting the discussion rolling. (And it is, in fact, harder to come up with something original to say than it is to react, to pick holes, to find weak points, criticize.)

What you almost entirely hear is just when people disagree with you, and then, this being the Internet, where good manners and moderation are considered so 20th century, people just let fly.

But...I don't actually think the impression you might get from this unfortunate appearance reflects reality. In fact, I think we're all glad you maintain TT, and we all respect your integrity and opinions -- even when we disagree. We appreciate the fact that you let any old bozo comment, without making everyone jump through some tiresome registration hoops, or without zealous banning to preserve the groupthink. This is one of the few places where, for example, hard-core Obamabots and McCainiacs mix it up, again and again. We would be the poorer were we forced to retreat each to our own echo chambers, not hear the opposing points of view, crazed and stupid as it may be.

I'm going to guess that Jim Harris agrees with nearly every word of that. Jim?

I don't think Jim's a meanie, even though about 90% of his political opinions are sheer fruitcake insanity that, if implemented, will drive the Republic into a ditch and impoverish our children and grandchildren unto the Nth generation. (I know very little of his other opinions, so he may actually be 90% a great guy, since politics is about the least important of our characters as men.)

He -- and I, and many of us, have gone over the line of courtesy, have said personal stuff that we would probably never say to someone's face. We're wrong. We don't mean it. I apologize. Jim's apologized above. Please don't take our momentary losses of self-control seriously. We forget too easily that there's an actual human being on the other side of the screen, and we allow ourselves to behave like uncivilized beasts, but if we were reminded, we would in general feel the appropriate shame.

So, please let Jim stay.

Besides, he's my favorite pinata! Thwack!

when he expressed "concern" about Rand's health care after Rand mentioned he was looking for work

I agree that that was poorly stated and I apologize for that too.

Jim's attempt to tie the illness of P.J. O'Rourke (who is suffering from a malignant hemorrhoid) and a remark O'Rourke made about the "heroism" of US soldiers with some sort of "heroism" of journalists. He goes from that to quote a Paul Newman slam against Republicans. I know not how that was supposed to be related.

Um, no. I don't mean to offer this as a point of debate, but it was a 100% sincere statement on my part that journalists as a group are heroes, including American journalists. As for Newman, the relevance is that he is one of the war heroes that O'Rourke had in mind. None of this was truly off topic. If you disagree with these stances, fine, I saw all of the arguments then and I still remember them. They aren't the point of this thread.

Postscript: or you could kill two birds with one stone. In the future, every time you think Jim (or any of us) crosses the line in some serious way, fine him $5, payable to the Amazon tipjar on the home page, as a condition of staying. You get the best kind of apology -- the folding green kind -- and the miscreant gets a useful reminder that's he in some sense a guest on someone else's property, maintained at nontrivial expense, and should exhibit some of the usual manners of a guest to a host.

Any long time reader understands what is behind this post that Rand has made. Further, when Jim elects to comment on a post (usually everything not space-related) it is to disagree. He seems to disagree with everything which, after awhile, is in itself a dead giveaway. It's a rather intelligent strategy, but it is also time consuming. So I wonder who's paying him.

Ban this guy.

Methinks you answer your own question:

Because I've had my fill of his continuing attacks on me, and my integrity, on my own blog.

Actually, I'm surprised thay you've been willing to put up with him for this long.

Perhaps you can prevent much of this kind of nonsense by posting a few simple rules at the beginning of every comment thread, in the manner of Bill Whittle:

1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door. ...

If I want to be annoyed, I can go read Daily Kos or somesuch. I agree with the Bill Whittle Rule. Post it and then you the blog master make any calls.

This is a really tough question. Jim is [beyond] irritating as well as being insensitive. He studiously ignores other peoples viewpoints. Is he sincere or mocking? I don't know.

If you banish him would others follow? TT is sort of our Iraq. I would certainly rather dispute here where I know intelligence and reason can be depended on from our host and many that comment.

I think in the interest of being fair, a warning shot is usually given. I'd say this post is that warning shot. Knowing that the consequence of more tone deafness could lead to his expulsion might be sufficient to make him take heed.

I remember you reprimanding me for some comment years ago. I also keep it in mind when I post. Because this blog is your effort and expense I try to always say something that adds value. I don't always achieve that of course.

This is a unique place in the net. I remember when SDB ended clueless it was because it wasn't fun anymore because of the letters he would get regarding the articles he wrote.

If you ever felt like that, for my own selfish interest I'd say ban him in a nanosecond. But if that's not a danger, then perhaps the warning shot is enough. Jim will find that you are a man of your word and he should not think you are not... should he continue being the ass that he's been. You will certainly solve that problem and life will go on.

I would not presume to advise you, but as you asked, I will be happy to contribute my view. I dislike so much of what Jim Harris says that if the blogs had the old USENET killfile feature, I would use it for him. I find Harris' views as stated to be representative of a kind of civil attitude that is destructive of the underpinnings of a free Republic, and believe that he does not understand this. In other words, based solely on what he posts here, I have no particular liking for Harris or his opinions.

But I wouldn't ban him, from what I've seen, because echo chambers are dangerous to public discourse, in the same way Harris' stated views are dangerous. Sunlight is, as they say, the best disinfectant, and I'd rather see those ideas discussed and dismissed than left to fester out of sight. That said, I am not being sideswiped on my own property by Harris, so the question of whether or not to ban him must ultimately include that factor, and it is one that, not being you, I cannot judge.

Ani-nouto goes just find without any comments. The main reason for not having them is, no matter what disclaimers you give, you carry the responsibility for the comments. On the other hand Glenn cracked in the recent weeks and started to allow comments, which suggests that there is a value to comments after all.

If we are on the topic of apologies, I would also like an apology from Carl Pahm and Mike Puckket for their extremely nasty comments insulting me numerous times at this blog with the full support of the owner as expressed in various prejudiced, irrational, nasty statements about by mental health, relatives, patriotism etc.

No, apologies are not the topic. Try to keep up.

Having a hard time finding anywhere where JH insulted or otherwise maligned you. Insult is always in the eye of the offended, so there's no room for anyone but you to judge the severity of the crime....

In the battle of ad hominems you would clearly be the victor; I've been reading/posting here for several years, under several 'nyms, and I've never seen JH to be anything but civil in his discourse, however disagreeable the opinions he offers may be to some.

But, as mentioned many times above, it's your party, and you get to decide who stays.

It's appalling that you asked this.

It's your blog. If it were mine and I actually allowed comments, I'd bounce him out of here like a Coke bottle in the street.

He's a fucking idiot.

Having a hard time finding anywhere where JH insulted or otherwise maligned you.

Try clicking on the 'attacks on me' link. Then consider that we are in anxious financial times. Then consider that getting under someones skin can be related to digging into there personal situation. Or just remain obtuse.

It's appalling that you asked this.

Actually Billy, it's quite revealing of Rand's character. Without getting too mushy here, I'd admire and am endeared by his humanity. For example, he and Mark Whittington mix it up quite often, but there is an undercurrent of respect and concern that both show. Mark and Rand may throw an insult or two back and forth, but never is it about personal destruction.

Rand - your blog, ban who you want to. Personally, I thought you over-reacted to Jim's comments and a warning would be more appropriate, but your house = your rules.

For those who didn't see anything uncivil about Jim's comments, they didn't read them very carefully. He used my employment situation to insinuate that I am a) a liar and b) a hypocrite.

"If we are on the topic of apologies, I would also like an apology from Carl Pahm and Mike Puckket for their extremely nasty comments insulting me numerous times at this blog with the full support of the owner as expressed in various prejudiced, irrational, nasty statements about by mental health, relatives, patriotism etc."

Wish in one hand and shit in the other loon.

See which fills up faster.

I would put him on probation and warn him not to make off-topic posts. I would give him one more chance.

What I would do is put a stop to unregistered anonymous or near-anonymous posts. I would require a distinct and unique complex user name.

thinking that something is a scam is totally different from materially not counting on it

This was right after Rand explicitly stated that he was not counting on it. So it wasn't just an implication, he directly called Rand a liar and a hypocrite.

Personally, I'm often grateful if someone can point out an area where I'm being hypocritical, but then I'm weird. OTOH, call me a liar and you will really piss me off. Getting facts wrong can happen to anyone. Lying is an intent to deceive. It's one of the most vile things anyone can say about anyone.

It's not a little thing. It's a rather big thing.

Regardless of anything else, I'd say Jim owes a sincere apology for that. Actually, he shouldn't need any prompt if human decency had any hold on him.

I must admit I enjoy Carl's Pinata prose.

He used my employment situation to insinuate that I am a) a liar and b) a hypocrite.

No, that's not what I meant, nor what I really think. I certainly don't think that you're a liar, nor at any conscious level a hypocrite. What I really think, since you feel so strongly about this point, is that you are caught up in certain pretenses. You could call that a subconscious kind of hypocrisy, but it's only human. We all get caught up in pretenses from time to time.

Barack Obama, for instance. I don't think that his books are rife with lies, in fact I think that they medium-good books. I also plan to vote for the guy. But it's true that certain passages have these great-life-journey or sweep-of-history pretenses. That, by itself, doesn't make him a bad person.

Okay, it's true that the phrase "fake but accurate" is really a euphemism for lying. Betsy Newmark dropped this phrase without realizing the implication and it's true that I jumped on it. So I agree that it was stepping over the line a bit to connect this phrase to your personal situation.

Don't worry, long after you ban our IP,

[post snipped due to extreme incivility and idiocy]

As opposed to lame retarede marxist ***holes like Elishitz

[post snipped for language]

That wasn't Elifritz.

To be honest, I think most of this is community stress over the coming election. Good chance things will settle down after the election is over.

I'll go along with the others: consider this the warning and one more step over the line & out comes the ban-stick. JH has proved he can be polite & to the point when he chooses to. That said, I usually see his name and just scroll down to avoid the nastiness he usually indulges in. I appreciate TTM and Rand's time and effort and can see why he's getting fed up. He's a patient man, far more so than I'd be in his shoes.

I think the key thing is noise to signal ratio. It's very tiresome to see comment threads hijacked. Someone who feels compelled to try and take over like that should get their own blog instead.

My advice? Restrict him to no more than two comments per day, and should he ever exceed that ban him..

I lurk, usually don't read the comments section, and really don't know the Simberg-Harris backstory. Harris seems civil, but a tad obtuse.

On the other hand, Mr. Harris, allow me to express my beef with you: Joe the Plumber is *not* "fake but accurate", but a common man who expressed what is--news flash--a fairly common opinion, and I submit that is what has probably caused this issue to go to DEFCON 1. And if so, I agree with Simberg.

I am not going to argue with Harris or anyone else about JtP. All anyone needs to know is that I believe a citizen who was in his own front yard has just had the journalistic equivalent of rape performed upon him. I really don't care whether Jim Harris appreciates that fact or not, of if he thinks Joe Wurzelberger has masterfully manipulated the system or not. What I *do* think is that it's time for some sharp elbows to come out, some checks into the boards by to be performed, as a *friendly* reminder that there are in fact standards in society that some of us are willing to go to rather far lengths to uphold, rather than see a "Lord of the Flies" situation develop, with the Right as Piggy and the Left as Jack (leading chants of "kill the beast, kill the beast"). So honestly, it's not that I think Harris should be banned for this brilliant contribution to "Great Moments in Western Civ Logical Discourse":

"Bingo, Betsy, he's "fake but accurate". That is exactly what McCain, Cavuto, and even Joe himself have in mind."

--it's that I'll have a difficult time getting upset if he is. I'm sorry, Harris' comment was an attack on a man who's only "crime" was interfering with a political candidate's path to glory. Yes, it was only a relatively small misstep by Harris, but a line must be drawn somewhere or else society flounders. If banning Harris is a minor injustice (not that I saying it would be), Harris, by his *own* level of empathy shown for another man who has been put upon unjustly for voicing his opinion, will have no cause to complain.

Mr. Simberg pays for the bandwith. End of story. Be respectful, or get out.

Joe the Plumber is *not* "fake but accurate", but a common man who expressed what is--news flash--a fairly common opinion,

I already stood corrected on this point, but I don't mind repeating what I said. I agree, Joe Wurzelbacher the person is genuine. His tax question, however, was "fake but accurate". It was undoubtedly an honest opinion too, but it was based on a false premise. There are a lot of genuine, salt-of-the-earth voters on both sides who want, or even demand, that public figures speak to their false premises. At least on the campaign trail, such public figures then have to try to square the circle.

But no, this is not what really irritated Rand. What really got him mad was that I questioned his claim that he isn't counting on future government benefits. His position is that it's true on his authority and that how it's true is none of my business.

Rand,

I've never found Jim's posts all that useful or informative. I like debating people who disagree with me (foils are useful), but Jim doesn't debate. He's immune to persuasion and logic and he doesn't bring anything to the table. I've simply skipped past his posts for months now. If you're tired of putting up with him, I'd say ban him. I don't want to lose this blog (one of my favorites) because putting up with problem commenters is too much of a chore for you.

Regards,
Brock

Rand,

It's a privilege to comment here. You provide that privilege, and to me, it really is that simple.

If you want other advice, I think the line item veto is better than the full veto.

Ban him.

I seldom post comments here, but I do agree with Brad: when someone hijacks a thread, it becomes unpleasant for everyone. There's a troll by the name of "Matt" who spends a lot of time hijacking threads at Don Surber's blog. When that happens, it's just not worth spending any time there. No matter what anyone writes, Matt has The One correct opinion on everything. Like a pit bull he never EVER lets go.

As many have pointed out, this is Rand's blog and he is entitled to have any rules he wants about who posts what.

But frankly, if I had a blog, I would consider an attempt to hijack the topic of a thread to be a banning offense. And I do believe that was Mr. Harris' intent in the P.J. O'Rourke thread.

What I don't understand is this: If Mr. Harris truly is such a kind, civic-spirited fellow who simply wishes to enlighten us all, why doesn't he simply post in a blog of his own, and let those who wish to partake of his wisdom read him there? If he wants to respond to a point that Rand has made in Transterrestrial Musings, he should be able to quote the relevant text of Rand's post and then criticize or concur as he pleases. He could even insult Rand to his heart's content, because in his blog he would be master of his own domain.

What I really think, since you feel so strongly about this point, is that you are caught up in certain pretenses. You could call that a subconscious kind of hypocrisy, but it's only human.

Jim Harris has obviously never learned the first rule of holes.

If Mr. Harris truly is such a kind, civic-spirited fellow who simply wishes to enlighten us all, why doesn't he simply post in a blog of his own, and let those who wish to partake of his wisdom read him there?

Because it's a lot more fun, and less time and work to be a troll at others' web sites, and it carries no responsibility. Perfect for him.

And I do believe that was Mr. Harris' intent in the P.J. O'Rourke thread.

If you look at the top, I decided to apologize for what I really thought that I did wrong, because I see it as the adult thing to do. But I'm not going to apologize for this because, no, this was not my intention; and no, I don't see how it was truly off topic. If a journalist who has cancer says that he thinks of soldiers as heroes, it just plain isn't off-topic to express the view that journalists are equally great heroes.

After all, suppose that it had been the reverse. Suppose that some stricken soldier had said that journalists are heroes, and you or I had said that actually soldiers are the real heroes. Then nobody at this blog would have called it off-topic. In fact, it would have been a lot more on-topic than many other accepted comments.

What is true is that the idea of journalists as heroes, even if it was on topic, started a quarrel. So people talked about that instead of either war heroes or P. J. O'Rourke's conservative punditry. And as I said at the top, I apologize for only being contrary, because nobody likes to be contradicted all the time and sometimes I silently have agreed with what's been said.

Rand,

There is a great and obvious difference between debating issues and trying to get under someone's skin for the sheer malicious pleasure of annoying someone. By all means allow variety of opinion when it is expressed in a civil and honest fashion.

However, if you think this guy is engaging in hostile and insulting attacks on you then he is and you should simply ban him without hesitation.

In my experience, liberals are always hostile and take delight in causing pain. I think this mindset goes hand in hand with collectivist politics (which is why there will be no shortage of gestapo candidates if it ever comes to that). They hide their hostility under the guise of concern for the poor and downtrodden, minorities or whatever group they can use, but what they really want is simply to destroy the rich, the independent, the free-thinkers or anyone who is not part of their ilk.

The fact that the guy is hanging on so tenaciously and trying to wheedle his way back in is proof, to me, of his dishonest intent. Anyone with a shred of self-esteem wouldn't be so eager to stay where he wasn't wanted.

If a journalist who has cancer says that he thinks of soldiers as heroes, it just plain isn't off-topic to express the view that journalists are equally great heroes. [...]

What is true is that the idea of journalists as heroes, even if it was on topic, started a quarrel.

OK folks, here's what Mr. Harris wrote:

Of course death continues to be so, sometimes, with heroes in Fallouja and Kandahar.

We should all wish O'Rourke well, but no one should think of wars as great hero factories. In fact, soldiers are no more heroes than, for instance, journalists. It's not only that war journalists face as much risk of death from hostile fire as soldiers do. It's also that most countries, no matter how dysfunctional or despotic, have plenty of soldiers. Only thriving democracies have a good supply of journalists.

If Mr. Harris had stopped here, I would have had no quarrel with what he wrote, although it is irritating to see him conflate war journalists with other journalists -- was Jayson Blair a hero? He could have used this paragraph as an opportunity to call P.J. O'Rourke a hero, since O'Rourke has been in a number of sticky situations in the course of his career (cf. Give War a Chance). But he didn't.

Instead he followed that paragraph with this one:

It is unfortunately true that war is sometimes when you discover real heroes. Since people here generally agree that Paul Newman was one of them, these were some of the man's own words: "You can take your pick of issues where Republicans are seriously damaging this country. Iraq, global warming, civil liberties. But I resent them most for how they've destroyed the American spirit by using xenophobia and fear to hold onto power."

Note the non sequitur here. Paul Newman wasn't a journalist -- why bring him up? Newman did in fact serve with honor in combat in World War II, but from what I've read I'd say he's no more a hero than hundreds of thousands of other American men who served under fire, and I strongly doubt that Newman himself would have claimed any special expertise in heroism. And then, having gratuitously brought Paul Newman into the narrative, Mr. Harris quoted him on ... what? Not heroism, not journalism, not P.J. O'Rourke, but the vileness of Republicans. Of whom P.J. O'Rourke is one.

That's some tribute you have there, Jim Harris.

Hi Rand.

Consider the obligatory stuff about your blog, your rules stated for the record.

If I read you right, you're using your readers as peer review resources. You think this guy's a troll out to do nothing more than hurt you, but you want a second opinion about that to validate your feelings.

That's because you really don't like banning people. You don't just preach free speech, you practice it.

OK, I don't think he's a troll, nor deliberately insulting. Wrong, infuriatingly obtuse ... that's another matter but irrelevant.

This is a troll. "Yosemite Sam" as we named him is in the second comment (and subsequent ones too). Someone with NPD, deliberately trying to find emotional buttons merely to hurt. That is what that looks like, an extreme example I admit, but good to have as a comparison.

Now it was my blog, and I allowed it for reasons of my own. I would not expect you to do the same. But it does show what a real troll looks like.

Having said all that, your blog, your rules, and I would think none the less of you if you banned him.

although it is irritating to see him conflate war journalists with other journalists

Maybe the argument was a little narrow but I certainly didn't have in mind only war journalists. (Not to bring up the whole quarrel again but you can read about an example at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/world/africa/27bearak.html .)

Paul Newman wasn't a journalist -- why bring him up?

That was a separate point but it was also on topic. Rand had just praised Paul Newman specifically as a war hero (and a film hero). So the point and relevance was, if they are heroes as Rand and O'Rourke say, why not listen to them.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/09/death_of_a_film.html

Prefatory disclaimer: Your blog, your rules, yadda yadda.

Jim Harrison does not seem to me to be an example of the Troll Proper. As far as I can tell, he isn't peddling opinions that aren't his own merely to be outrageous. He has certainly said insulting things, but he doesn't appear to be quite aware that they are insulting.

However, I will say - and I do have some experience in these matters - that judging by what I've seen of his behavior in this topic, he doesn't know how to converse with people he disagrees with. There is a constant, grinding tone of opposition. One gets the strong impression of exasperation and contempt barely held in check. It seems impossible to engage him in any way that won't provoke further insults - whether he's aware he's being insulting or not.

The guy's a menace to civilized conversation. If such conversation is what you want in your comments section, I would without hesitation advise banning him from your particular corner of the Internet.

So the question would seem to be, what do you want to do with your comments section? Why do you have one? Clarifying that may clarify whether and when to wield the ban-stick.

I think Rand needs to come up with an offical Transterrestrial Code of Conduct and I would love to see him put an end to unregistered posting.

Do Jim's comments add value? Yes, in that dissent has a value.

However, Jim doesn't just dissent. He insults at a level of depth that he is apparently unable to fathom.

For example, P.J. O'Rourke wrote an impressive article about life's indignities with a class and wit that everyone seemed to appreciate. Jim saw it as a chance to take a dump. Even if his point was intelligent; Even if his point was valid; it was still a dump.

He really doesn't know the first rule of holes even when all the warnings are present. He makes it absolutely clear that we are all hypocrites. Again, this may be true. Tactfully pointed out, it may even be appreciated. Jim doesn't appear to know how to tactfully make those points.

Even worse is to be called a liar by Jim. Lying isn't just getting the facts wrong. I know I repeat myself, but lying is the intent to deceive and amounts to one of the vilest accusations you can make about another person. That's not just dissent. That is a personal attack on another person's character. It's not just any person, but our host. That's a level of tone-deafness which is astounding.

Even though the title of this post is democracy, I would dissent and say that you Rand are lord of this manor and although I can't speak for anyone but myself... I am sure to be satisfied with any decision you make.

Personally, I would like Jim to express some understanding of why this issue comes up and why his own actions have prompted it. His understanding with a bit more contrition would go a long way.

There is a biblical concept that iron sharpens iron. I don't visualize Jim as providing this value, but I could be wrong. I usually think of this concept as a mature discussion among those that share a foundation of values and are working to enlighten one another on certain details. The sharing of enlightenment doesn't seem to be Jim's primary goal. He doesn't seem to be wanting to build up, but to tear down. Again, I could be wrong. However, he doesn't seem very contrite.

I hope I have provided at least one thing that would help you with your decision Rand. You are king of this castle and I very much respect and admire what you have produced here.

If Jim can't show manners (and that lowclass BS of his in the O'Rourke article was the last straw for me, too) he's welcome to go back to the hole he crawled out of. There are enough folks here who can be contrary without being jerks.

To quote from Pratchett: part of freedom is the freedom to suffer the consequences. Otherwise, it's not freedom- it's license.

In the spirit of Rand's "Spartacus" post: Hold put fist, extend thumb, pull across throat. Allow Jim the freedom of spending his time elsewhere- and us the freedom of conversing without him.

Ban him. Low IQ, disagrees for no other reason than to disagree, few consistant positions, and a form of snarkiness that is mostly just irritating.

FINISH HIM!