Say Mike, I just wanted to note (though you probably already know this) that Morgan Spurlock does a lot of first-person filming (e.g. "Super-size Me") that examines an issue from a subjective point of view. What you're doing isn't without precedent. I watched that documentary again this evening. It's a good example of the sub-genre.

So I'm not a civil discussant now. Well, that's to be expected after the treatment I've received from you. And you're still hiding.

Do read the post you're responding to before you respond to it, won't you?

Yay! A real name. Care to have a real conversation while yer at it, or do you just want to insinuate that the only recourse I've got to counter-argue your brilliance is calling down dark goddesses and crashing your parties?

Wow, you're a real piece of work, you know that? It takes a serious disconnect from reality to keep believing what you do in the face of my responses.

I'm sorry. What was your name again? I didn't catch your name. Oh, that's right, you're hiding behind a pseudonym so you can keep prosecuting this fight anonymously. Who's got class now?

Oh! It's the chocovore-butt-Kali-worhipping bad-mouth who rescues dogs but is so steeped in her cognitive dissonance she can't understand courtesy when she sees it.

Whassa matta honey? Did you expect me to keep my mouth shut while you insulted me, too? And anyway, isn't it inconvenient when the scapegoat refuses to leave town? When it comes back with all your sins still tied to it and makes you answer for them? Maybe I'm a little better acquainted with dark goddesses than you think. How dark would you like it?

I've got no problem with continuing discussion that mentions my name. I do have trouble with the notion that people who aren't willing to put their real names into a conversation continue insulting me after I've left in good faith and with genuine good will. And, by the bye, your claim to integrity was shot in the foot the first time you posted that insulting vitriol you hoped would pass for humor in response to me.

While you and Baruch go about baiting me and smearing my name? I don't think so. That's equally inadvisable, and I will defend myself against you. Besides, I promise you the tale you think these comments tell isn't the only one people will read.

And anyway, you're mighty late to this party to be writing to this issue at all. Perhaps if you didn't want to be included, you oughtn't have bought a ticket.

Yay! I get a rant monument. Make sure it has breasts, and not the conical kind. They need to be round, and the thing should be tall, overall.

And no. I left because it was the right thing to do in the situation, to refuse to continue to escalate the matter. You interpreted my departure the way you did because it made you feel justified in your inappropriate response. You might have offered me the benefit of the doubt, the way I offered it to you until well after you deserved it, but I'm sure that would have been asking too much of you.

And 'running away on the Internet'? WTF is that, even? In any real-life situation, you bet your ass people of good conscience back away from an escalating conflict unless they have no choice in the matter. The baiting and flaming that happens on the Internet happens because people feel safer behind their anonymity to do things they would never do otherwise. In recognizing that and leaving, I hoped you'd take my good will for exactly that, make whatever respectful rebuttal you needed to and move on.

But you didn't. You proved that you are incapable of thinking about thinking, of examining your behavior before you engage in it. You also proved that you do bait and hope others will flame, which means you're looking for power in the exchange. So, no again. You don't get to bait and then point the finger at my fire. That's textbook behavior too.

How about this? You want to accuse me of running away on the Internet? How about I promise to have the last word, to keep posting until you're sick of me, to give you all the energy you and your johnny-come-lately friend seem to need? Would that make you feel better? It would be a great fight, I promise. It would be just as nasty and meaningless and destructive to both our positions on the original topic of conversation as this exchange is now. We'll all feel shitty about it afterward, the energy of discourse will darken completely and whatever mutual agreement we might ever have come to will divide us even further. Moreover, we'll have done it in somebody else's blog, which is the equivalent in real life of having a fistfight in somebody else's house.

Or we can do this. You can stop baiting me, and I'll stop flaming at you. We can agree to disagree on the original topic of this blog post, whether we like each other or not. We can go our separate ways and not say bad things to or about each other any more. Now doesn't that sound nice?

At this point, I really don't care one way or the other. I'm happy to let this thing devolve deeper into nonsense, now that I know how much you want me here (it's so nice to feel needed). Let me know what you decide.

You know, I was willing to walk away from this. I was willing to keep a civil tongue in my head, work to common cause and walk away from the matter when you and a few others turned this discussion into a flame war.

Not now.

Mike, I empathize with your girlfriend and agree that if for no other reason than zoning regulations, those sacrifices should not have taken place in a residential neighborhood. There's a reason why slaughterhouses have to be properly zoned. They disrupt the peace and represent a health risk. I am utterly appalled at some of the responses you've received on this list to your documentary, and I earnestly hope you don't believe all Pagan and Heathen people are equally short-sighted.

Baruch, you're not in the debate-trade. If you were, then you wouldn't have responded to me the first time with ill-concealed snark and ramped up the flame war when I tried my damnest to be civil with you. You most certainly wouldn't have beaten your chest like some sort of wanna-be warrior and crowed about battlefield victory in the face of my good will. The first rule of debate is civility, and the second is to respect your opponent's position, even when you disagree with it. What you have demonstrated here is all the ability of a keyboard junkie to look up logical fallacies on Wikipedia and none of the heart and soul of debate. Gods! You couldn't even bring yourself to return the simple courtesy I offered you and everyone else here. You and a couple of others just waited until I departed the discussion and then spat obscenities at my back. Cowards. What on earth is wrong with you people?

So, you think I don't understand logical fallacies. Good for you! Of course, you're just some defeated jerk on a fixed income who spends all his time posting nastiness on discussion boards because he has no other power in the world. So you'll forgive me if I don't think much of your your opinion in this regard. You're the lowest common denominator, man, and I was mistaken to believe you could be rational, or civil, or Gods forbid, logical. I was mistaken to believe that civilized discourse could exist on this matter between enlightened Pagans of differing viewpoints. No, it takes critical thinkers for that, and all you want is a scapegoat, a patsy, a doormat, a target. Yeah, I got your target right here. Come and get it.

Oh, and guess what? Much of this post is an ad hominem attack. Your assignment is to write a really long and self-important response to it so that everybody will be impressed. I'm sure that won't be too hard for you. While you're at it, look up 'cognitive dissonance'.

This is a duplicate post made before I created an IntenseDebate account. I was concerned that anonymous comments would not be posted to this blog, so I created the account and re-posted. You may disregard it.