[Architect]

To me, Joe attempted to defend Irving from the barrages of the PC forces who wanted him destroyed for his views. Joe quite clearly made a separation between defending Irving from this vicious attack and defending the indefensible positions which Irving advanced. I support Joe in this. I find Irving reprehensible. The people who want to destroy him for his (mistaken? racist?) views are equally disgusting. Ostracism and a bit of civilized put-down are more appropriate punishments.

Unfortunately, this particular article doesn't actually denounce Irving's position (although any fair reading would lead one to conclude that Joe doesn't agree with him). This left him open to criticism. And to demagoguery on the part of those who would prefer that any critism of Israel be shouted down.

[Sabramerican]

defend Irving from the barrages of the PC forces who wanted him destroyed for his views.

Ostracism and a bit of civilized put-down are more appropriate punishments.

Gosh. Someone who didn't know would assume that Irving was the Defendant- when he was in fact the Plaintiff.

[gcruse]

defend Irving from the barrages of the PC
forces who wanted him destroyed for his views.

The way I understand it, Irving was suing
people for what they said about HIM.  And he
LOST.  So who was trying to destroy who
for their views?

[gcruse]

And to demagoguery on the part of those who would
prefer that any critism of Israel be shouted down.

Claiming international Jewish mind control IS
demagoguery.  You should step away from
that mirror before you actually smack yourself.