Be Suspicious of those that Quell dissent

I think the major reason Greg Felton and I clash so often other than his disagreeable nature is that I think he can't keep up mentally and rather than admit ignorance he hides behind the facade of a peevish curmudgeon and tries to intimidate his challengers by insulting them and denigrating their intellect.  

When that doesn't work he coordinates with his fans (he is an author after all) who flock to protect their idols honor and flags down those that disagree. And if your a careful observer it is not just people that disagree that get flagged but it is specifically people who disagree and launch a great defense of their premise.

Take for example, Slavery Boy, none of his rebuttals were ever flagged down, later the discussion on religion which became quite heated, no flags.  Why? Because none of the rebuttals came close to touching Greg's analysis, which was spot on. I've been flagged a few times now, not for being overly insulting (which I have never instigated), but because I am of equal if not superior standing in the argument and often leaving Greg looking foolish.  I am not a lazy debater, I do the legwork whereas Greg is either lazy or incompetent (relatively speaking) that after he exhausts knowledge of his specialities (i.e. Russian history, Israel, Zionism etc) he relies heavily on what amounts to bluster. 

I have in the past invited Greg to debate in a forum where our answers are permanent and no one can get flagged due to the fact that the other side is losing. He has consistently declined.  You have to be suspicious of someone who consistently chooses a forum that allows for the silence of dissent and erases all humiliations after 45 days. 

For someone who trumpets the absolute nature of the right to privacy he certainly is no defender of the right to free speech.  I suspect he employs his methods learned from others who have censored him in the past. 

Is it that he is getting too old for this game?  Is he losing his edge?  He parrots his points over and over again like he is the only one talking, not dissimilar from a patient suffering from dementia. 

I think it is time that Felton acknowledges his shortcomings and sticks to what he knows and leaves politics and political discussion to those that can. 

Look at his last post in response to someone who commented on the downfall of a political forum when one person tries to dominate through insults.  At first glance it could be construed as directed at me:

So true!

We need some Jamie Scott/SE repellant. SE's infantile behaviour has turned me right off.

"This place can get infested
Date: 2012-02-18, 2:06PM PST
This place can get infested with insulting and condescending commentary. It's the cesspool of political discussion on the web because you get the same person or persons that are hell-bent on dominating the discussion by means of personal insults and name-calling."

But look at the all important second paragraph that Greg Felton left off conveniently:

"I call it verbal violence. . . it's used by the cowardly because they only use verbal violence while safely hiding behind anonymity. They would never debate face-to-face using verbal violence because in a face-to-face setting verbal violence almost always leads to physical violence. In short. . . they're a bunch of chicken neck cowards best to be ignored. "

Look at the line "safely hiding behind anonymity". Then look at Greg's reply "We need some Jamie Scott/SE repellant." 

I am not anonymous because I sign my posts. Jamie Scott always identifies himself. Greg, although I know who you are from your unique use of the language, you never sign your posts and try to hide behind your anonymity. 

The post was directed at you, not unsurprisingly, you attempt to co-opt it for your purposes.