Crawled back into your hole, didja, CK? Do us a favor and pull the lid shut.

Arrogant, illogical, morally stunted gasbag.

A quote from CK MacLeod the Wise and All-Tolerant at his site:

@ OhioCoastie:

I’ve said my piece, and said it again, and said it again again. My current intention is to review the thread some time, and see if there’s anything worth responding to in it. That could change, but an invitation from you I don’t find very interesting as compared to taking care of some business and conversing with the regulars here as time allows.

Allow me to translate. When CK says "anything worth responding to," he means "something I have a prayer of disputing." He knows we've already eviscerated the confused mish-mash of PC bull**** sentiment that passes for his argument. Rather than face further embarrassment here, he prefers a fantasyland where we mere plebes are beneath his notice.

You see, we fail to grasp the finely-crafted nuance of his scintillating prose (dare we say poetry?) and his ever-so-droll prolixity. Why, we simpletons have allowed our atrophied cerebella to become entangled by his third-person wordplay and his cutting faux-muslim sign-off. Yes, yes, that's certainly it. Nothing "interesting" to see here. No time to drop in, there's a good lad. CK's much too busy chatting with the two or three near-peers who muster the courage to frequent the comment section of Zombie Contentions. Plus there's lukewarm Earl Grey tea to be sipped ... and those vintage LPs of Philip Glass won't listen to themselves, now will they? We should be grateful to have caught a whiff of the rarefied atmosphere that clings to his exalted presence. Let us be thankful that he deigns to go slumming now and then amongst us here in the Green Room. We, the lowly unwashed, genuflect before you.

Objection one ... objections two and three ... objection four ... unanswered by the ever-eager-to-dialogue-but-never-judge CK MacLeod.

Chime in anytime here, CK ... without deleting comments.

How far does the “Islamic worship exclusion zone” have to extend to be “OK” – maybe a mere yellow on the Outrage Scale? (And I’ve seen attempts to answer that.)

How about outside the blast radius for starters? Part of one of the airliners landed on the building the Cordoba House builders want to convert into their mosque.

CK, how do you reconcile this ...

At that critical moment following the end of World War II, as victorious Americans sought both to exercise and to show themselves worthy of moral leadership on a global and historical scale, we rejected any species of moral collectivism because it conflicted with our traditions, precepts, and interests. Put more simply, we rejected collective judgment because embracing it would have turned us into what we had fought against for so long, and had defeated at such great cost, and knew we were already facing again.

... with this?

I can’t imagine an average Muslim, or anyone sensitive to religious hatred and blasphemy, feeling comfortable on Islam-related discussion threads at many conservative sites. What discussions are not taking place that could be – either because people are reluctant to speak up, or have long since moved on? At what point does a failure to respond – and condemn – become tacit communal approval?

Help me understand how this isn't an example of illogic, cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy.

As for this strawman argument ...

CK appealed, in passing, to a conventional sense of proportion about Cordoba House: "You’re getting this excited about a 15-story building in Manhattan?"

... it's not just any 15-story building we're getting excited about, and you know it. It's a 15-story mosque.

the linkage at this point remains tenuous: Rauf is a member of… a group that… made the single biggest contribution to… the group that… helped organize the flotilla which… included one ship on which… some passengers ambushed Israeli commandos.

"Tenuous" links? We're talking about the same Feisal Abdul Rauf, right?