Janet

First: Janet, whoever you are, I'm greatly touched and humbled by what you wrote to CD. Thank you, sister. While I wish I could live up to half of the impression I get from your comments, I'm reminded that someone is always watching, even when we think nobody else pays much attention.

(A bit like prayer, some days.)

God bless you.

I see that because of what you and "Anonymous" wrote, CD has changed his tune somewhat. You appear to have the power to persuade -- I hope you use that skill in other ways which make the world a better place, and show others the love and grace we've been shown.

Update

It's clear that CD doesn't yet realize I have a blog (perhaps he has no way of checking his referrers), and doesn't realize I responded to his banning action here. After reading that, he may not wish to dialog further.

Since I last wrote, there have been more allegations that I'm paid off and being evasive (no, I simply read his request to go away, and promised I would), that I somehow sent people to write to him (other than linking, no), and that I'm not open to changing my mind.

I see he now says I may comment again if I can fulfill certain criteria.

Tim - if you will say that you have no connection to the medical/insurance industry whatsoever I offer the greatest of apologies and invite your return.

Sadly, I cannot fulfill his new conditions either: I've already told him, explicitly, that I have a girlfriend who works helping stroke patients regain their lives. She is deeply into the medical industry, and thus I have a fairly strong connection too. If were a judge and this were a court case, I'd have to recuse myself.

But, as I've said before: it's a silly and harmful criteria, anyway. We all have motivations. Money (such as a lobbyist would receive) is no less tainting than the desire to embrace views that our peers will like or approve of, or avoid ones they'll dislike -- or even just remain in our "comfort zone." And we shouldn't dismiss arguments just because we feel the one offering them has a "bad" motive -- facts are facts, and the motives of the one citing them doesn't change or negate them.

And it's not clear "CD" (as I've been calling him) is interested in that kind of dialog anyway:

This blog is here to reach people looking to find an understanding that fits Christian and Democratic party ideals.

For better or worse, as I read it, the purpose of his blog isn't to discover and then promote what works best, from whatever source. As stated there, his goal seem to be, having previously concluded (by whatever means) that the political policies and ideals of the Democratic Party are the most correct and helpful, to reach people who are also already interested in the same view.

If so, my questions probably weren't at all what he'd have preferred. So it's really up to him to decide if that's something he would like to pursue. And up to you all to say whether you'd like to see that or not. (It appears Janet would, and that's enough for me.) If so, since I'm still banned, one of you will have to take step in that direction (and post a link back to here) -- and then CD will have to read my rebuke to him, and decide for himself.

And yes, political discussions can be "divisive", but there are greater sins than division, and it seems we're divided anyway, as I have to jump through his hoops even to communicate. But the beauty of this situation is that CD & I have no close friendship to risk (and I don't hate my opponents) so it's ideal in some ways.