Speaking of intellectual DISHONESTY, I see you conveniently left out all your posts I was referring to. That finds YOU in violation of making accusations without providing evidence.No, I referred to them right in the middle of post 2151:
Anyway, then I proceeded to analyze Pannehoek's full argument here and here, and found it a hopelessly muddled collection of plausible speculation and ad-hoc leaps joined by logical fallacies. In fact I concluded that his comparison of Darwinism and Marxism was "a cargo-cult justification for Marxism".
Your reaction was to characterize my contextual analysis of the quote you relied on as: ...
It's up to you to analyze my analysis of Pannehoek, and to show us all how my analysis is "blaming capitalism and God for Marxism", "defending Marxism", "putting all [my] faith in a Marxist", "tak[ing] to heart" the rest of his article, and "drool[ing] over their dogma, seeking to find something anti-conservative".
Put up or shut up.
I dun "put up" in my posts. Obviously you are engaging in deceiving lurkers. Hoping none will go back through the events as they happened. It's an old evo trick and one you are forbidden to partake of as per your name calling agreement.
I don't expect any evos to take you to task though. Honor among thieves and all that rot.
we recommend not engaging a non-complying poster because it could lead to disruptive dialogue and flame wars.
We are in FULL compliance with the agreement as agreed upon.
Per the moderator of said agreement, as stated in this post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/952079/posts?page=2156#2156 Per section 5 of aforementioned agreement.
5 Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes; however, merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene or belittling."
If one of us notices another poster creating problems on the thread, we may post a warning in behalf of all of us, to the effect of: "Hey X, that post of yours [number 123] was a bit provocative. You know we have rules about disrupting (or whatever). I understand that you're momentarily swept up in the debate, but please restrain yourself."
Or: [in lieu of the 2nd sentence in bold] "Under our agreement, the actions of provocateurs, trolls, spammers, and disruptors are prohibited, as is the use of obscene or belittling words to describe another poster or his beliefs."
After having made such a good faith attempt to bring the offending poster into compliance, if the problematic poster continues in the offending behavior we may post a warning (such as: "Don't feed the trolls!") to other posters that the problematic party has chosen not to comply. If the problem persists, the offender may thereafter be called a provocateur, troll, spammer, or disruptor, and doing so will not be a violation of this agreement.
We are in compliance, please quit engaging the disruptor, the flamewar he is trying to start is building, it is time to quit engaging and let him stew by himself until he chooses to comply with said agreement.
Until that time, Virtual Ignore is our friend.
Thanks in advance.