- Again, when the idiots bring nothing to the table that addresses his specific point(s), which party is responsible for not engaging?
"Like when he accused me straight up of being an anti-Semite! He just preaches at me, without being affected by my half of the conversation. He continues to hammer away at his point, without providing proof of his accusation."
- From that exchange, it looked less like what you said, 'Pete's just trying to win' (this is summarized) and more like you not wanting to lose to Pete, specifically. While you say that he just, as in the Deep1 thread you mentioned, hammered away at his point, and that certainly was true (and justified-I'll explain later), you tried moving the goalposts... which is why Pete was right in trying to keep you on the point. The moving involved your disagreement with Shapiro's assessment that anti-semitism comes only from the extreme right and the mainstream left. To which Pete simply asks for any mainstream Dem's (lefty's) condemnation of a specific and rather large event. As I'm assuming none existed, you balked. Why? Again, as the thread developed, it reads as though you didn't want to concede a point i.e. lose, anything, to Pete. Pete's apologized numerous times over the years and if you had come at him in the way you outlined in your 'I have returned' spiel, you probably would've gotten one. You didn't so no surprise that he didn't.
"I'm curious to know if you think it's good for everyone on the board for him to behave that way?"
- Don't like it? Don't engage it. I've not said one word to WW after he told me to fuck off and the moderators did nothing. So when Pete brings he reasoned ideas to this forum, I'm thankful. If you find fault with his reasoning and have, more importantly yet extremely lacking here, reasoned yourself into your own position, then engage. However, if you haven't and when it's clear that the vast majority of those opposing him haven't either yet you still chose to engage.... well, what does that make you?