His account is much older than mine, yes. I've been reading for about as long as his account. No sure what the relevance of that is. Anyway, I'm just using you

His account is much older than mine, yes. I've been reading for about as long as his account. No sure what the relevance of that is. Anyway, I'm just using your comment to respond to several others at once that all make roughly the same point. It's rather meta to the OP though, so maybe it would better be detached from here (seeing that my response now seems to be the top voted reply out of many, which is rather ironic in the light of the following). But on to my point: not all points or opinions should be 'reasoned' with, or deserve an intellectually honest debate, or even a reply. To paraphrase the old quip, 'don't wrestle a pig in the mud. You'll get dirty and the pig likes it'. Many other commenters try to engage the GP in a fact-based 'debate', but that is impossible with sophistic extremists who use terminology like 'corporate death penalty'. It's meant to incite an emotional reaction only. There is no point in refuting Stormfront posters either, or Truthers, or pick the fringe of any group that you ideologically disagree with. Now I know that the general rule for posting here is 'don't post negative things' and 'stick to substance and not the person' etc.; and my off handed reply is essentially contrary to all those things; and I fully realize that with this reply I'm polluting even more. My point is: there seems to be some sort of naive believe that 'all opinions are equally valid', 'all viewpoints deserve equal consideration' and 'the only way to respond to fringe/populist rhetoric is with meticulous fact-based refutation'. That's simply not true. Call me a 'reactionist' or a 'fascist censor' - but I liked the days when 'letters to the editor' from lunatics were thrown in the bin and only those with substance and without inciting language were published (I mean that metaphorically, I was born in 1979, I'm from a generation where 'letters to the editor' were already an anachronism). I'm not talking about shunning content because of its content; but rather shunning content that employs mala fides sophisms like purposefully using incendiary phrasing. So in summary: no I won't be seduced into a useless 'debate'. And on top of that, I would much prefer much more heavy-handed moderation where many more posts were simply and summarily deleted (and yes that includes some of my own, that were written too hastily) in order to increase the intellectual content per 1000 words in the comments; failing that, we (as in, all posters) need to ignore and/or shun extremism instead of giving it a podium by replying with well-intentioned fact-based answers and thus attracting even more attention to it.