The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Quote:There's some conservative groups - and even conservative professors - on campus. They're in the minority - as to be expected - but they're there.

Why is that 'as to be expected'? Why should those of us who are conservative 'expect' to be underrepresented among a state college faculty?

Michigan is divided 50:50 along voting lines, in fact Trump won Michigan in 2016. I assume that means the taxpayers of this state are pretty much divided along the same lines.

What should be 'expected' at a public university is the composition of faculty beliefs reflects the open public of that state. It doesn't have to be 50:50, but it shouldn't be 95:5 or 90:10. I don't believe in quotas, but if Western's hiring offices are doing their jobs right we should have more representative numbers.

Certainly the Western Herald should have at least one journalist commenting from a conservative perspective. That is hardly asking too much. If they choose to comment on national political issues-which they do-than having representation along the lines of the percentages among the taxpayers is what is fair. Not having any-and tolerating that situation-is unfair. This is a state taxpayer supported university afterall, they shouldn't be promoting only views that only one side of the political debate agrees with.

My first of many misquotes was in the Western Herald, good times.

The idea that you need to ask permission from someone to do something innocuous is totalitarian. Do I need to ask permission from a Greek person to eat a gyro and do geometry? Do we have to preface every written communication with acknowledging the Phoenicians for giving us the letters we use and apologizing to them for being brutally repressed by the Macedonians?

This is why I will not shed a single tear when the college bubble bursts and everyone realizes we've been putting kids in massive debt so they can drink, be bored in class, and learn the finer points of dialectical materialism only to get a job that barely requires a high school diploma to do properly. At least I have muh football...

Quote:“The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified.”

Racism as a powerful and ongoing force throughout US history is truth. White privilege that results from that legacy of racism is truth. These truths are difficult and uncomfortable for white people to face and many of them need them diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, and falsified. You can see why that way of thinking appeals to a certain personality type.

It shields them

From having to

Think.

Let's start with this

Your link to this article is labeled with the word "powerful".

Which would suggest that you think this is powerful evidence of "white privilege" in our country today.

OK

Let's think.

What (if any) conclusions can be drawn from your "evidence"?

Potential problems with this "experiment".

1. The designers of this experiment assumed that certain names are "white" and that certain names are "black". This is a racist assumption.

2. They also assumed that the employers in their experiment shared their racist assumptions about these names.

3. There was no analysis of, or accounting for the race of the people doing the callbacks. Were they white? Black? Asian? Other?

4. Nor was there any follow-up with the people doing the callbacks to collect data about, and analyze the reasons for their choices about who would be called back. This is the most important of the many design flaws with this "experiment".

5. This "experiment" was done in 2001. Assuming it has any relevance, what are the implications for 2020?

6. This "experiment" was performed in Chicago and Boston. Assuming it has any relevance, what are the implications for the country at large?

And then there's this gem:

Quote:"Another finding is that employers located in more African-American neighborhoods in Chicago are slightly less likely to discriminate”.

Put another way:

Employers in "more African-American neighborhoods in Chicago" exhibited the same (assumed by the designers to be racist) tendencies as everyone else in the "experiment", but "slightly less so".

What to make of this?

Your turn.

(03-01-2020 07:09 AM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  

Quote:“The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified.”

Racism as a powerful and ongoing force throughout US history is truth. White privilege that results from that legacy of racism is truth. These truths are difficult and uncomfortable for white people to face and many of them need them diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, and falsified. You can see why that way of thinking appeals to a certain personality type.

It shields them

From having to

Think.

Yes racism has existed in our country, and unfortunately..to a certain extent probably always will. But to act like this is how the vast majority of people act is just wrong. Our country has spent many years trying to level the playing field for everyone and give all citizens of the country an equal opportunity to be successful and gain an education to have a good life. The left is not concerned with equal opportunity, they want equal outcomes. Our country was founded on ideas of freedom and all people being treated equally. We have slowly worked in the direction of making those ideas into reality.

I’m pretty sure throwing an entire group of people into a category and making assumptions based on someone’s skin color is the definition of racial profiling or racism. Just because you are black does not mean you grew up in the inner city with no money, just because you are white it doesn’t mean you live in a 4,000 sq ft mansion on the water. Only an idiot or a bigot thinks in these terms.

When I meet people, I don’t automatically assume they are a certain way because of their skin color. We are all individuals with our own thoughts, beliefs, and life goals.

But, hey, what do I know..

1. It's not racist to note that there are black names. Come on, man. The two black names they mention in the article are Lakisha and Jamal. Do you seriously think that an employer would not see those names and think that person is black? My guess is that you would say that most employers would see those names and not make any assumption about race, and maybe that's true for some. But clearly there's something about those names that's leading to fewer callbacks about jobs. You'd have to be pretty obtuse to think that something is anything other than racism. Here's an article about a study that "looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015." Lots of different methodologies. Lots of similar findings. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18...acism-jobs
2. It seems like (in the gem) you're assuming that employers in black neighborhoods are all or mostly black. Not necessarily the case.
3. If I, as a white guy, am more likely to be hired because of my race, that is white privilege. This is true whether I'm applying for a job in a white neighborhood or a black neighborhood. If I, as a white guy, am less likely to be arrested and prosecuted for possession of marijuana because of my race, that is white privilege. This is true whether I'm high in a city with a white Police Chief, DA, and Mayor or a city with a black Police Chief, DA, and Mayor. If someone, as a black woman, is more likely to be pulled over while driving their car, that is racism. This is true whether the Cop/Police Chief/DA/Mayor etc. is white or black.

RayBan, I'm not arguing that everyone or even most people are personally bigoted. I'm arguing that our institutions systematically favor white people. And, I think people of color deal with racism more often than white people usually notice or would suspect. That's why it's important to listen when someone else has a different experience. I'm definitely not arguing that all black people are poor or all white people are rich. Believing in white privilege doesn't mean I don't think lots of white people get screwed over and have to struggle to live a decent life (they do). And you're right, everyone should be treated as an individual.

But if we go colorblind it becomes impossible to see racism in society, and impossible to do anything about it. And if our response to evidence of racism is "I don't see race and most people aren't bigots," we're pretty unlikely to fix the racism. From the beginning my point has really just been that if this woman was upset about the spirituals, and so is the Black Student Union, it's probably best to hear them out about why that is. And consider doing things differently. For white people to get really certain really quickly that there's nothing to be upset about is really common with lots of things related to racism, and it eliminates the possibility of reaching an understanding and trying to make a society or a university a better place for everyone.

(03-01-2020 11:49 AM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  1. It's not racist to note that there are black names. Come on, man. The two black names they mention in the article are Lakisha and Jamal. Do you seriously think that an employer would not see those names and think that person is black? My guess is that you would say that most employers would see those names and not make any assumption about race, and maybe that's true for some. But clearly there's something about those names that's leading to fewer callbacks about jobs. You'd have to be pretty obtuse to think that something is anything other than racism. Here's an article about a study that "looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015." Lots of different methodologies. Lots of similar findings. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18...acism-jobs
2. It seems like (in the gem) you're assuming that employers in black neighborhoods are all or mostly black. Not necessarily the case.
3. If I, as a white guy, am more likely to be hired because of my race, that is white privilege. This is true whether I'm applying for a job in a white neighborhood or a black neighborhood. If I, as a white guy, am less likely to be arrested and prosecuted for possession of marijuana because of my race, that is white privilege. This is true whether I'm high in a city with a white Police Chief, DA, and Mayor or a city with a black Police Chief, DA, and Mayor. If someone, as a black woman, is more likely to be pulled over while driving their car, that is racism. This is true whether the Cop/Police Chief/DA/Mayor etc. is white or black.

RayBan, I'm not arguing that everyone or even most people are personally bigoted. I'm arguing that our institutions systematically favor white people. And, I think people of color deal with racism more often than white people usually notice or would suspect. That's why it's important to listen when someone else has a different experience. I'm definitely not arguing that all black people are poor or all white people are rich. Believing in white privilege doesn't mean I don't think lots of white people get screwed over and have to struggle to live a decent life (they do). And you're right, everyone should be treated as an individual.

But if we go colorblind it becomes impossible to see racism in society, and impossible to do anything about it. And if our response to evidence of racism is "I don't see race and most people aren't bigots," we're pretty unlikely to fix the racism. From the beginning my point has really just been that if this woman was upset about the spirituals, and so is the Black Student Union, it's probably best to hear them out about why that is. And consider doing things differently. For white people to get really certain really quickly that there's nothing to be upset about is really common with lots of things related to racism, and it eliminates the possibility of reaching an understanding and trying to make a society or a university a better place for everyone.

Please show me some examples of systematic racism. I don’t know of any laws, regulations, or examples of cities..states..or institutions who are enforcing ways to marginalize African Americans or any other group of people. This country has taken great strides to make sure the laws on the books protect all groups of people and make sure that systematic racism doesn’t occur. Are there some racist people in the US today? I guarantee it, but these people are the exception and not the rule.

In fact, there are examples of laws on the book to give certain groups a leg up. Affirmative Action, HUD, etc.

The goal is to go color blind, no? The goal is to not see color but to treat all people as equals no matter what, no? If we keep making color an issue, and virtue signaling saying one group of people are just and others are inherently bad based on color is divisive and is the actual definition of racism. When we see signs of racism occurring to someone in our country we need to do our part to strongly condemn it and punish the person who is responsible.

(03-01-2020 10:20 AM)RaybanBronco Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 07:09 AM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  

Quote:“The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified.”

Racism as a powerful and ongoing force throughout US history is truth. White privilege that results from that legacy of racism is truth. These truths are difficult and uncomfortable for white people to face and many of them need them diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, and falsified. You can see why that way of thinking appeals to a certain personality type.

It shields them

From having to

Think.

Yes racism has existed in our country, and unfortunately..to a certain extent probably always will. But to act like this is how the vast majority of people act is just wrong. Our country has spent many years trying to level the playing field for everyone and give all citizens of the country an equal opportunity to be successful and gain an education to have a good life. The left is not concerned with equal opportunity, they want equal outcomes. Our country was founded on ideas of freedom and all people being treated equally. We have slowly worked in the direction of making those ideas into reality.

I’m pretty sure throwing an entire group of people into a category and making assumptions based on someone’s skin color is the definition of racial profiling or racism. Just because you are black does not mean you grew up in the inner city with no money, just because you are white it doesn’t mean you live in a 4,000 sq ft mansion on the water. Only an idiot or a bigot thinks in these terms.

When I meet people, I don’t automatically assume they are a certain way because of their skin color. We are all individuals with our own thoughts, beliefs, and life goals.

But, hey, what do I know..

Well put, & your most recent post too.

1. Please provide me with a name of "black names". And of "white names". And of "mixed race" names.

2. Of the names that are "black", is it possible that some of them are (more) commonly noted within particular economic and sociological subsets of black people?

And

If yes

Is it possible that people with certain economic and sociological backgrounds make better (or worse) employees?

And

If yes

Is it possible that prospective employers might be influenced by such knowledge/beliefs (whether correct or not)?

A properly designed "experiment" (notice the article doesn't even label itself as a "study") would have included appropriate follow up with employers, and would have included a multivariate analysis of the data that was collected.

But

None of this was done.

Which leaves us with an "experiment" that was conducted in 2001 that has very limited explanatory power.

It certainly isn't powerful evidence (your label).

3. I'm not assuming employers in "black neighborhoods" are all or mostly black. I'm saying we don't know, because the "experiment" was poorly done.

If the employers WERE all or mostly black, how would that affect your conclusions about the article?

Would you then accuse the black employers in black neighborhoods of perpetuating "white privilege"?

_____

Quote:The Black Student Union said they'd like to be consulted before events that portray their culture. I think that's a solution.

A good friend of mine is going to have a son soon.

He and his wife are "white".

They plan one naming their son either James or Marcus.

Are those"white names"?

"Black names"?

If it's that latter.

With whom should they consult?

Lest they be accused of cultural appropriation/misappropriation.

(03-01-2020 12:31 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:20 AM)RaybanBronco Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 07:09 AM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  

Quote:“The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified.”

Racism as a powerful and ongoing force throughout US history is truth. White privilege that results from that legacy of racism is truth. These truths are difficult and uncomfortable for white people to face and many of them need them diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, and falsified. You can see why that way of thinking appeals to a certain personality type.

It shields them

From having to

Think.

Yes racism has existed in our country, and unfortunately..to a certain extent probably always will. But to act like this is how the vast majority of people act is just wrong. Our country has spent many years trying to level the playing field for everyone and give all citizens of the country an equal opportunity to be successful and gain an education to have a good life. The left is not concerned with equal opportunity, they want equal outcomes. Our country was founded on ideas of freedom and all people being treated equally. We have slowly worked in the direction of making those ideas into reality.

I’m pretty sure throwing an entire group of people into a category and making assumptions based on someone’s skin color is the definition of racial profiling or racism. Just because you are black does not mean you grew up in the inner city with no money, just because you are white it doesn’t mean you live in a 4,000 sq ft mansion on the water. Only an idiot or a bigot thinks in these terms.

When I meet people, I don’t automatically assume they are a certain way because of their skin color. We are all individuals with our own thoughts, beliefs, and life goals.

But, hey, what do I know..

Well put, & your most recent post too.

I don’t like talking about topics other than sports on here, but this one got under my skin. However, I appreciate the civil back and forth discussion on here. It’s refreshing, I barely go on twitter or the other social sites anymore because people get nasty and are unwilling to treat each other like adults. Shoutout to everyone on this thread!

Having watched this dialogue all my life I've come to the conclusion we're never going to agree. Let's just accept the analytical, thinking conservative is NEVER going to accept the argument along the terms of the empathetic, feeling liberal. Our thought processes are alien to each other.

Just divide the country down the middle and the Left can mismanage one side all they want, we'll live in the other. I accept our artistic venues will probably be inferior to theirs-they'll have most of the artsy-fartsy Hollywood types and musicians afterall. But we'll have balanced budgets, stronger currency, law and order and maximum personal freedoms-uninhibited by Big Brother in Washington DC.

That's a situation I can live with.

(02-29-2020 12:45 PM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  Mainly as exhibited in the Western Herald. I started calling them on their never-ending GOP bashing and didn't let up. Finally, I exchanged emails with their managing editor and told them all I wanted was a little balance. I reminded them that Michigan voted for Donald Trump and that half of Michigan was Republican, as a public university they owed it to their readers to provide more balance. She-ostensibly-agreed and told me they would 'take actions' to provide more balance. She told me that, since ALL her current journalists were Liberal (she didn't explain how that happened) that she would ask the WMU Student Young Republicans to submit Opinion articles 'now and then' for balance. This was 3-4 years ago and I'm still waiting for even ONE article like that. She either outright lied to me just to get me off their backs or she lacked the sense of fairness to carry through with her promises.

And if you look at the current leadership of Western-Dr. Edward Montgomery-he was an active campaigner for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and served in both their Administrations. With political credentials like that I hardly expect him to promote fairness to my side, as represented in the Herald or other institutions on campus. What was the selection board thinking by bringing in someone with such strong political affiliation with one party? Doesn't make sense to me, at all. None of our past Presidents had that involved a political background.

Western has started going in directions I don't support. Like I said, I communicated my thoughts directly to them and let them know my dissatisfaction, they weren't interested enough to change. So, I stopped donating. The only donation I made to WMU in over a decade was to the WMU Sunseeker Solar Cart team-and that was a directed donation only for them.

Being one-sided and then seeking financial support from an evenly divided state is pretty darn stupid in my view. You would think they'd take that into account? They haven't. In many cases, WMU has shot itself in the foot-or they would have made much more progress than they have.

Thank you for finally admitting what a complete and total loser you are. You have nothing better to do with your time than to whine and complain to the Herald staff about some perceived bias you think it has? No wonder you want WMU to eliminate 3/4 of its degree majors and focus only on STEP degrees. You hate anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow world view and doesn't do exactly what you want them to do.

That editor doesn't owe you anything in terms of a reply or any justification for how he or she is running his or her paper. She is probably 21 years old and is a STUDENT at our alma mater. She deserves to run her paper as she wants and to make mistakes without having some cranky loser alumni giving her 5hit because he has nothing to better to do.

You need to find some healthy hobbies. Stop embarrassing my alma mater you loser.

(03-01-2020 02:05 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  That editor doesn't owe you anything in terms of a reply or any justification for how he is running her paper.

I agree with this.

100%

Why would (some) folks not feel the same about John Wesley Wright?

A political debate is fine, but let's keep it civil.

No name-calling or personal attacks, please.

(03-01-2020 11:49 AM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  1. It's not racist to note that there are black names. Come on, man. The two black names they mention in the article are Lakisha and Jamal. Do you seriously think that an employer would not see those names and think that person is black? My guess is that you would say that most employers would see those names and not make any assumption about race, and maybe that's true for some. But clearly there's something about those names that's leading to fewer callbacks about jobs. You'd have to be pretty obtuse to think that something is anything other than racism. Here's an article about a study that "looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015." Lots of different methodologies. Lots of similar findings. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18...acism-jobs
2. It seems like (in the gem) you're assuming that employers in black neighborhoods are all or mostly black. Not necessarily the case.
3. If I, as a white guy, am more likely to be hired because of my race, that is white privilege. This is true whether I'm applying for a job in a white neighborhood or a black neighborhood. If I, as a white guy, am less likely to be arrested and prosecuted for possession of marijuana because of my race, that is white privilege. This is true whether I'm high in a city with a white Police Chief, DA, and Mayor or a city with a black Police Chief, DA, and Mayor. If someone, as a black woman, is more likely to be pulled over while driving their car, that is racism. This is true whether the Cop/Police Chief/DA/Mayor etc. is white or black.

RayBan, I'm not arguing that everyone or even most people are personally bigoted. I'm arguing that our institutions systematically favor white people. And, I think people of color deal with racism more often than white people usually notice or would suspect. That's why it's important to listen when someone else has a different experience. I'm definitely not arguing that all black people are poor or all white people are rich. Believing in white privilege doesn't mean I don't think lots of white people get screwed over and have to struggle to live a decent life (they do). And you're right, everyone should be treated as an individual.

But if we go colorblind it becomes impossible to see racism in society, and impossible to do anything about it. And if our response to evidence of racism is "I don't see race and most people aren't bigots," we're pretty unlikely to fix the racism. From the beginning my point has really just been that if this woman was upset about the spirituals, and so is the Black Student Union, it's probably best to hear them out about why that is. And consider doing things differently. For white people to get really certain really quickly that there's nothing to be upset about is really common with lots of things related to racism, and it eliminates the possibility of reaching an understanding and trying to make a society or a university a better place for everyone.

Jamal is an Arabic name. Like Jamal Khashoggi.

(03-01-2020 02:12 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 01:32 PM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  All I asked the Herald to do is provide ONE conservative journalist, for balance. Never mind that every other journalist on their staff (about 8-9 as I recall) wrote from a Leftist perspective, I would have been happy with just ONE voicing our views. But the Left doesn't believe in any kind of fairness. They talk about it, but only as it applies to cutting down on our voice. They're not content unless they are dominating the pulpit.

More evidence of how much of a loser you are. Why are you so worked up about this? The Herald is totally living in your dome and that is pathetic.

There are a million things more important to me on a daily basis than ginning up bull5hit arguments with a 21 year old student reporter because I might disagree with how they are running their paper. I guess you could call that, wait for it-----------TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

Hell starting arguments with 21 year old is pretty pitiful in the first place.

But then you feel entitled to harrass a young man or woman pursuing a degree at our alma mater. Honestly if I was running that paper, I'd serve you with a cease and desist order for harassing my students and student journalists.

Don't you ever forget this--you are a total loser and your behavior embarrasses me to be affiliated with you in any way.

You are an angry and sad person. I feel sorry for you. I mean that with all sincerity.

(03-01-2020 04:13 PM)RaybanBronco Wrote:  You are an angry and sad person. I feel sorry for you. I mean that with all sincerity.

Spare me your pity party.

(03-01-2020 03:54 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  A political debate is fine, but let's keep it civil.

No name-calling or personal attacks, please.

I'm being perfectly civil. If you are a grown man harassing WMU students, you are a loser. And these losers need to be informed that they are, indeed, losers.

(03-01-2020 02:05 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 12:45 PM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  Mainly as exhibited in the Western Herald. I started calling them on their never-ending GOP bashing and didn't let up. Finally, I exchanged emails with their managing editor and told them all I wanted was a little balance. I reminded them that Michigan voted for Donald Trump and that half of Michigan was Republican, as a public university they owed it to their readers to provide more balance. She-ostensibly-agreed and told me they would 'take actions' to provide more balance. She told me that, since ALL her current journalists were Liberal (she didn't explain how that happened) that she would ask the WMU Student Young Republicans to submit Opinion articles 'now and then' for balance. This was 3-4 years ago and I'm still waiting for even ONE article like that. She either outright lied to me just to get me off their backs or she lacked the sense of fairness to carry through with her promises.

And if you look at the current leadership of Western-Dr. Edward Montgomery-he was an active campaigner for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and served in both their Administrations. With political credentials like that I hardly expect him to promote fairness to my side, as represented in the Herald or other institutions on campus. What was the selection board thinking by bringing in someone with such strong political affiliation with one party? Doesn't make sense to me, at all. None of our past Presidents had that involved a political background.

Western has started going in directions I don't support. Like I said, I communicated my thoughts directly to them and let them know my dissatisfaction, they weren't interested enough to change. So, I stopped donating. The only donation I made to WMU in over a decade was to the WMU Sunseeker Solar Cart team-and that was a directed donation only for them.

Being one-sided and then seeking financial support from an evenly divided state is pretty darn stupid in my view. You would think they'd take that into account? They haven't. In many cases, WMU has shot itself in the foot-or they would have made much more progress than they have.

Thank you for finally admitting what a complete and total loser you are. You have nothing better to do with your time than to whine and complain to the Herald staff about some perceived bias you think it has? No wonder you want WMU to eliminate 3/4 of its degree majors and focus only on STEP degrees. You hate anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow world view and doesn't do exactly what you want them to do.

That editor doesn't owe you anything in terms of a reply or any justification for how he or she is running his or her paper. She is probably 21 years old and is a STUDENT at our alma mater. She deserves to run her paper as she wants and to make mistakes without having some cranky loser alumni giving her 5hit because he has nothing to better to do.

You need to find some healthy hobbies. Stop embarrassing my alma mater you loser.

You think I care what you think of me?

Your idea of fairness is having things 100% your way. Not 90%, not 95%, you gotta have it all your way. That's not the way the world works Schleprock, the rest of us have our opinions as well. You better get used to it, because we're not going to go away.

By the way, it's my Alma Mater as well. As always, you Lefties think it's all about you and only about you.

(03-01-2020 03:54 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  A political debate is fine, but let's keep it civil.

No name-calling or personal attacks, please.

He can't have a civil discussion, he can't accept anyone of other beliefs has an opinion-it's his way or the highway. If you disagree with him, you are not entitled to express a point of view.

Look at this, I make a simple post in this thread and it so enraged him he has to insert 3-4 attack posts and an attempted character assassination. All this over a few simple comments I made that weren't even directed at him.

Someone has deep anger and intolerance issues.

I relish discussion and debate and love the free exchange of divergent views, but when it turns into name-calling and vitriol that's where I draw the line. I've Blocked Charm City Bronco because he can't have a civil discussion without becoming uncivil. Regretful, but necessary.