I appreciate the criticism, and I think your point is valid.
Certainly, our posts are disruptive. I accept responsibility for participating, but there are two points I have that perhaps you can consider, and give me your advice. Point one: it is almost invariably the case that, when these disruptions occur, I have posted an opinion pertinent to the OP, and indeed, you can see that, in these two instances, that is the case. So, point one is that he starts it — but that does not excuse my participation because I am sufficiently self-assured that I can refrain from responses to random drive-bys, however… Point two is that it is almost invariably the case that his sideswipes have nothing to do with the OP, and everything to do with some personal attack, which I also could deal with except that he makes inaccurate statements either about my philosophy or my history on the board. The notion, for example, that I take my classical liberalism from Ayn Rand is as ludicrous as saying that Bush takes his neo-conservatism from Karl Marx. Or, as another example, saying that I have ever been the boards loudest defender of Bush is an outright lie since I have steadfastly condemned his tyranny since his usurpation of the office.
Is it necessary, in your opinion, that I leave such matters alone, without addressing and rebutting them? Would you? Ought I to leave for newcomers (and some old timers as well) the mistaken impression that my silence constitutes tacit agreement with his screeds? Would you do the same? If I followed you from thread to thread, as he does me, and routinely interrupted everything ongoing just to make accusations about your motives, impugn your character, ridicule your username, and make false statements about your posting history — what would be your response? Perhaps you can give me insight on how to handle the matter.