It looks like you aren’t going to supply any evidence to back up your claims, so I’ll stop asking. This isn’t the proper forum for my inquiry anyway.

Though your response provided further unsupported claims, it does, in fact, help me gain some insight into your mindset. Thanks.

It looks like you aren’t going to supply any evidence to back up your claims, so I’ll stop asking. This isn’t the proper forum for my inquiry anyway.

Though your response provided further unsupported claims, it does, in fact, help me gain some insight into your mindset. Thanks.

I thought that might coax you to respond. Unfortunately, you’ve given me talking points instead of specifics to back up your claim. I understand our founding principles, and was hoping you could shed some light on what specific actions violated which specific rights. I’m not trying to defend the Bush administration; rather, I was hoping to gain some insight into your way of viewing these issues. I meant it as a friendly inquiry, and meant no offense.

I thought that might coax you to respond. Unfortunately, you’ve given me talking points instead of specifics to back up your claim. I understand our founding principles, and was hoping you could shed some light on what specific actions violated which specific rights. I’m not trying to defend the Bush administration; rather, I was hoping to gain some insight into your way of viewing these issues. I meant it as a friendly inquiry, and meant no offense.

This country was founded on principles of due process and the presumption of innocence. The Bush administration flaunted and continues to via Cheney the notion that we can do anything to protect our way of life. As Obama has ably stated, this is a false choice that undermines the very special qualities we consider worth protecting. You may argue with the premise, but don’t mistake silence for not being thoughtful or cogent.

This country was founded on principles of due process and the presumption of innocence. The Bush administration flaunted and continues to via Cheney the notion that we can do anything to protect our way of life. As Obama has ably stated, this is a false choice that undermines the very special qualities we consider worth protecting. You may argue with the premise, but don’t mistake silence for not being thoughtful or cogent.

Unfortunately, this is the same response I always get when I ask this question: nothing but the sound of crickets chirping. I was honestly hoping for a thoughtful, cogent response. Am I left to conclude that your accusation has no valid basis?

Unfortunately, this is the same response I always get when I ask this question: nothing but the sound of crickets chirping. I was honestly hoping for a thoughtful, cogent response. Am I left to conclude that your accusation has no valid basis?

Steve,

I keep hearing and reading this and similar charges, always with no evidence to back them up. I’m not defending the last administration, but what exactly are you referring to? I’m aware of three top Al-Qaeda figures being waterboarded, which some consider torture, in order to extract information; but I’m not clear on which of our human rights were destroyed. I’m not attacking your claim, but rather hoping to be enlightened.

Thanks.

Steve,

I keep hearing and reading this and similar charges, always with no evidence to back them up. I’m not defending the last administration, but what exactly are you referring to? I’m aware of three top Al-Qaeda figures being waterboarded, which some consider torture, in order to extract information; but I’m not clear on which of our human rights were destroyed. I’m not attacking your claim, but rather hoping to be enlightened.

Thanks.

I think if we can’t have civil discourse, we should no longer allow open and free comments on our blogs, which are in a way our living rooms.

I think if we can’t have civil discourse, we should no longer allow open and free comments on our blogs, which are in a way our living rooms.

There should be no argument amongst any of us about this: death threats and spitting in someone’s face is never justifiable, never acceptable, and is entirely dehumanizing.

Cheap shots on other people under the guise of anonymity are still cheap shots. It’s so reminiscent of the issues around Kathy Sierra two years ago. This is not gender-based mistreatment; it’s just mistreatment.

Anyone who knows me knows I’ve tangled with Mike Arrington on more than one occasion in his comments and on my own blog. But it wasn’t a gratuitous slam on him — it was a genuine difference of opinion that was expressed in a less-than-kind fashion on both sides. Though I’m not proud of how I responded, I can at least say I responded with transparency and honest indignation, sans threats or other perjorative attacks.

This is why I remained behind a pseudonym for as long as I did. I was a target when I was in the CNN communities (we were required to use our real names) and after leaving, I wasn’t thrilled about being hunted down. It took me six years to overcome my aversion to being known under my real name. I still am reluctant to use my last name.

Words are powerful. When combined with acts of anonymous violent gestures, they can be frightening. I wish Mike and his family the best and hope his time off will give perspective and rest to these issues for him.

If the ones behind his harassment are caught, they should be named. Publicly. Only cowards do violence behind the guise of anonymity.

There should be no argument amongst any of us about this: death threats and spitting in someone’s face is never justifiable, never acceptable, and is entirely dehumanizing.

Cheap shots on other people under the guise of anonymity are still cheap shots. It’s so reminiscent of the issues around Kathy Sierra two years ago. This is not gender-based mistreatment; it’s just mistreatment.

Anyone who knows me knows I’ve tangled with Mike Arrington on more than one occasion in his comments and on my own blog. But it wasn’t a gratuitous slam on him — it was a genuine difference of opinion that was expressed in a less-than-kind fashion on both sides. Though I’m not proud of how I responded, I can at least say I responded with transparency and honest indignation, sans threats or other perjorative attacks.

This is why I remained behind a pseudonym for as long as I did. I was a target when I was in the CNN communities (we were required to use our real names) and after leaving, I wasn’t thrilled about being hunted down. It took me six years to overcome my aversion to being known under my real name. I still am reluctant to use my last name.

Words are powerful. When combined with acts of anonymous violent gestures, they can be frightening. I wish Mike and his family the best and hope his time off will give perspective and rest to these issues for him.

If the ones behind his harassment are caught, they should be named. Publicly. Only cowards do violence behind the guise of anonymity.