Replies

Well, Sabertooth, I have to wonder a bit.

First you post an evasive answer to a very simple question asking if a comment was within the bounds of civil discourse. A comment which should, in my opinion, get a poster banned from this forum.

Then when Poohbah confronts you about the evasive answer, your response is not to clarify, you instead accuse me of playing a "gotcha game" in Post 266 - a tactic reminiscent of Bill Clinton attacking his accusers.

If you will not condemn stuff that crosses the bounds, then I have no choice but to assume that you do not have a problem with it being part of the political dialogue and for it to be associated with conservatives and who are opposed to illegal immigration. I happen to have a problem with that attitude. That attitude is one of the primary reasons my views on immigration have evolved to strong support the Wall Street Journal's position on this issue from a pro-restriction posture.

You cannot have it both ways, Sabertooth. You cannot call for civility on this, and then try to sweep ugly comments under the rug, and I think you are trying to do that with regard to Sam Francis. Continued efforts to do so will force me to assume the worst, and that will be reflected in my posts.

So, I ask again, and ask for a yes or no answer, and you can feel free to elaborate as to why you give the answer you are giving:
Are the comments by Sam Francis at the May, 1994 conference of American Renaissance quoted by David Frum in National Review within the bounds of civility?