Sure. It could be. Heck even three things could be true at much. Maybe even three ignorami all easily manipulated by their propaganda de jour. And its not like I'm new to this little panty-bundle pet issue you choose to editorially moderate around. We all see you. We all see what you are doing and have been doing around this issue for years. Just like we see Jordan Lund for what they do. Or Ruud. Or squid.

The issue to me isn't the disagreement: its your refusal to have it and to use your moderator powers to suppress conversations which you can't actually engage in, in a public manner, and expect to convince people to come to your side. And what it does, the way its almost exclusive to one particular pet issue: it dramatically weakens your stance.

Any point you could possibly be making which might actually be convincing becomes basically meaningless because you can't do it rhetorically. You choose to not allow for it. Just like Squid coudlnt defend zionism rhetorically, and so they abused the power of moderation; just like Jordan Lund and their defense of establishment poltiics. These are your peers. These are who you share a bench with when you choose to engage in this manner.

If your arguments were really good and convincing, you wouldn't need to editorialize via moderation. When you do what you do, it says more about the weakness of your perspective than it does show any kind of strength.