Not sure what to make of this post by Dean over at PJ Media.

Recently had the pleasure of recieving a trackback from Dean's World for an article I posted over at Wizbang Bombsquad. Let me put some quotes up in bold next to the quotes in italic from the Left vs Right discussion and let the reader decide whether Dean has any right to complain about posters who are snide, snotty and insulting to his character and intelligence.

Quotes from Left vs Right in italics
Quotes from Dean's response to my article "A response to Gina Cobb...sorry but Islam has worn out its welcome" including some interesting quotes from comments in bold. Deans article was titled "Out-of-Context Quotes! Get Yer Red-Hot Out-of-Context Quotes Here!"
Dean's World - Left Vs. Right Discussions:

leftists and Democrats generally want to bash and attack people as evil.

Classic, classic case of irresponsible, stupid, even venal generalizations about someone else's religion.

that's full of snide insults, cheap shots at my motives and my character, or gross distortions of my position, it's more often from some person attacking me from my left than on my right.

This reminds me of chuckleheaded Christians who habitually quote this or that Bible verse to rationalize their opinions about God's will without ever looking at the context of the verse.

I further notice that every time I come to the defense of Islam, I get links that are snide and snotty. These arguments are invariably from what could nebulously be called "the right." They want everyone to believe that Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy, oppressive, and dangerous. They want us to believe that the religion itself seeks to impose "dhimmitude" (permanent second-class citizenship) on all who won't convert to it. They want us to believe it's not just a religion, but an insane ideology that enslaves all who are part of it. Any time I refute this, I get reasonable arguments from people on the right, but I also get snotty, sneering, insulting trackbacks.

Neal Boortz, JIFA (Just Another Foaming Islamophobe). Oh, and did I add that he's an idiot who hurts the war effort? I should have added that Neal Boortz is an idiot who hurts the war effort. Because Neal Boortz is an idiot who hurts the war effort.

One day I'll figure out how bigots like you can possibly support our foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, or indeed how you can even think about voting Republican. A very enlightening day that will be...

Well that is probably enough examples of how hard it is sometimes to live up to ones own standards. It is worth noting that Dean attacked me out of the blue since my post was not addressed to him at all. In my original post in response to Gina Cobb there were no personal attacks at all, I respect Gina and made sure that I addressed the ideas of her article not the personality behind those ideas.

Oddly enough for a person who decries the insulting tone of those commenting or trackbacking to his posts he is very quick to the insult himself. It is a good bet that the first one to insult the other in a debate is usually the person with the weakest arguments. Such was the case when Dean decided to respond in a trackback to my post. In that response he managed to do everything that he considers so bad in this Left vs Right post of his at PJ Media. Snide, snotty, cheap shots at my motives and my character, or gross distortions of my position, that is exactly what he does in the first paragraph of his unsolicited response to my post. Pot, Kettle Black Dean?

Naturally I know that this is a tactic used by those who want to shut down debate, but in these days of war, debate is exactly what should be happening. The harshest cruelest debates are much more tame then the wars that follow misunderstandings. What we are seeing coming from many of Islam's defenders is an attempt to silence debate that only differs from the rioters tactics in that there is no physical violence. Both are attempting to achieve the same end. Silence a critical look at Islam. The Queen of Denmark said it best:

Telegraph News We must show our opposition to Islam, says Danish queen: "'We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.'

'And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction.'

An open debate of Islam and its character should be welcomed by everyone if Islam is truly everything claimed by folks like Bill from INDC and Dean Esmay. Certainly shutting down debate by calling someone a bigot, which in today's climate has only one effect, should be shunned by those who believe that Islam is truly the Religion of Peace. If they are correct and Islam has so many things to recommend it, then making the case for it should not be such a difficult thing that its defenders resort immediately to snotty remarks, attacks on character and finally with bombs and bullets. And yet that is what we see time and time again. Why? Are the arguments for Islam so weak? If I were the defendent I would worry that my attorney was threatening my accusers with shame or worse instead of proving I was innocent if I were innocent.

Reference Article