I was consistent. I made no statement about "turn around". Clearly you are confused. because you would never knowingly make a false and damaging claim like that.
Well, pardon me for being confused, but you did write "I didn't say turnaround was or was not appropriate. I said it is inappropriate to call someone who is a not a Nazi a Nazi.", which sure as heck sounds like a claim that turnaround is not sufficient grounds for calling someone a Nazi. Feel free to deconfuse me, if you care enough to try to clarify your remarks.
You really are confused. An observation of hypocrisy is not a "I'm rubber, you're glue" accusation.
True, but you didn't observe any hypocrisy on my part. You chose that particular attack, to all appearances, because you have a special fondness for accusing me of whatever my last accusation was. You wrote:
"Until you provide evidence that Don called someone a Nazi without just cause, your responses are examples of the rank hypocrisy you seem to detest."
after I'd written:
"Alternately, in case every non-Nazi you ever called a Nazi was him or herself guilty of incorrectly and inappropriately calling people Nazis, then feel free to quote him/her/them doing so."
How the heck is it hypocritical for me not to provide my evidence until after the fact? I offered Don the opportunity to provide his evidence after the fact.
Bomb #20 said:
It would have been hypocritical for me to have accused Don if he were actually innocent; but there's nothing hypocritical about merely not posting the evidence until someone asks. This isn't rocket science.
It is hypocritical coming from alleged honest and ethical poster because it is unethical and intellectually dishonest.
Why is it unethical and intellectually dishonest to make a charge first and provide evidence afterwards? What difference does the order make?
Bomb #20 said:
That's your evidence? Don fully debunked your mistake.
That was a debunking, was it? Looked to me like a confession, guilty with an explanation.
"Obviously, Dein Kampf has a double meaning since it is also an allusion to Hitler's book Mean Kampf "My Struggle" written before he actually exterminated the Jews from Germany... though after I posted it I did think it was over the top."
If there's somewhere in there where he shows Derec really is a Nazi, feel free to point it out.
Bomb #20 said:
If you think you made a substantive contribution to the conversation, you're severely sarcasm-impaired. Our species often discourages behavior X by punishing it with X; "Two wrongs don't make a right" does not qualify as an intelligent objection to the practice.
Locking someone who has knowingly committed a crime in a cell or a cage against their will is not the same as taking an innocent and holding them against their will. Equating the two is incredibly stupid.
Calling someone a Nazi who has knowingly broken the customary rule against calling a non-Nazi a Nazi is not the same as taking an innocent and calling him a Nazi. Equating the two is incredibly stupid. That's what you were doing when you wrote
Ah, the stupid "two wrongs make a right" position.
I did not equate locking someone who has knowingly committed a crime in a cell or a cage against their will with taking an innocent and holding them against their will. I sarcastically pointed out that equating Nazi-calling the innocent with Nazi-calling the guilty is the same intellectual error as equating caging the innocent with caging the guilty. If you didn't understand that's what I was doing, then you are sarcasm-impaired. Work on that.