Mark,
You and I know each other. I was happy to meet you when you came to Chicago and we had a delightful day playing Olympia Fields a few years back. While I can appreciate that you and Mac want to have a rapprochement or what we in the States might call a "Rodney King moment" where we all agree to "get along", you both conveniently avoid the central truth that MHM is, on an ovewhelming basis, the provocateur of the hostilities that he now complains of. It's like the kids who killed their parents who then want sympathy for their status as orphans.
His modus operandi is now so well established that it could be taught in blogging school on how to be a disruptive force. The usual progression is to: 1) pick a fight; 2) draw some incoming fire; 3) claim to be misunderstood because his antagonists didn't "read" his post; 4) rely on his often repeated family provenance; 4) claim to be injured in some fashion; and 5) summon his defenders to come to his aid.
This post is no exception to the rule. Here are just a few tidbits from the initial post on the thread. I could go through past threads and give you exhibit after exhibit, but this man's perseverations exhaust me and I don't have the time to waste. Here's what he said in this first post:
Many add to GCA threads without first reading what has been written previously, so how on earth can they know or even offer a comment. Seems to say the debate is not interesting enough for them but they still want to make a point – yet how valid is that point to the debate?
We have the people here who are more than competent to produce a good debate, but for some reason the subject does not matter, it seem less important than attacking the individual who posted the thread. Worst still many Members seem to run for cover not wanting to get involved, ignoring the attack, and thus forming an act of censorship in doing so, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of the site.
But of course it’s more fun scoring points against another individual just because you do not agree with his/her point of view or worst still with a tone you believe you have detected. To kill a debate for this reason is pure madness but we are all to blame because very few of us ever jump in and support the right of that individual to have his say – wars are fought for less reasons.
After that for an initial volley, what does one expect? He got whacked left and right while some people tried to look past his vitriol and redirect the thread to one of its purposes: to alert our participants of a most worthy website that most will find useful. But if Melvyn expects to drop bombs and not get hit by shrapnel or get hit by unfriendly fire, he is even more delusional than I think he is. You and Mac and the occasional other member of this site can repeatedly protest that Melvyn has something worth offering on this site, but the evidence is more than conclusive at this point in time.
Melvyn ended his post with this cute proviso: PS As for your opinion of me or my posts, I would only ask that you delay in making up your minds until we meet, allowing you the opportunity to read my body language in conjunction with my comments. Perhaps we may have to still resolve issues by accepting that we do not agree but without the need for hostilities.
So, in essence, he wants the opportunity to provoke, fight, pronounce, set rules, chide, embarrass and annoy but we are to withhold our opinions of him until we meet.
Personally, I hope that day never comes.