Your biggest problem, anjin-san, is that you perceive agreement as a sign of non-bias.

I don't think so. I do not doubt that you are biased. You just seem to be more even handed then the average OTB poster...

So, in your view, a 'rant site" is someplace where the writers there offer thought you disagree with. A very revealing definition.

Nope. I think I just got through saying that even if I generally disagree with James and other posters on this site (with the exception of Alex), they do not rant. The little chestnut below that you linked to is a rant (I not that it is also packaged as "truth" is that where you picked up that habit?):

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If you can't produce a meaningful argument, retire and move on. I am happy to hear differing opinions if they are presented with a modicum of intelligence. I might even be persuaded to change my mind :)

The Truth About Vietnam's Tet Offensive
As any student of the war in Vietnam will tell you, we were winning the war on the ground, but the media, as today in Iraq and else where, is invested in America's defeat - they want us to be a third rate nation so they can, as the controlling elite, feel good about their personal good fortune. They will scrafice anyone and anything to maintain this fantasy.

As moral and physical cowards, this is the easiest way for the media journalists, read these people as urban terrorists, to keep control of their power - a power based on deception and misinformation. The scary part is that this is found in almost all print media, including most magazines of any type, and, of course, nearly all television save Fox.

I am pretty sure that the only one here who has ever "brought me up short" here in a way that meant anything to me is Michael, and since I regard him as an intelligent and fair commentator, I am happy to be informed by his opinions. I give James an honorable mention, but his bias does knock him down a notch.

Your biggest problem, anjin-san, is that you perceive agreement as a sign of non-bias. I am biased, more so than James on some issues. James is very intelligent and as fair as anybody, I'd say the same for Dave Schuler and Steven Taylor. I agree with Alex Knapp on most issues, but he's much more biased than the other three. Bithead is significantly biased, but he's also quite intelligent. Being biased doesn't mean they're not fair, and it doesn't mean that they're wrong.

So, in your view, a 'rant site" is someplace where the writers there offer thought you disagree with. A very revealing definition.

also posted on what amounts to a (Very good) rant site

I don't think you are clear on what a rant site is. Though we commenters may, on occasion, rant (and perchance, rave) the posters here do not indulge in the Coulter-esque drivel that I saw on the site you referenced earlier in the thread. I often disagree with them, but they generally present their ideas in an informed, coherent and intelligent manner.

The fact that you seem to read, and would reference such a site, is a rather telling all by bitself itself,,,

When you get brought up short by opposition, you go into sour grapes mode.

I am pretty sure that the only one here who has ever "brought me up short" here in a way that meant anything to me is Michael, and since I regard him as an intelligent and fair commentator, I am happy to be informed by his opinions. I give James an honorable mention, but his bias does knock him down a notch.

The only grapes I indulge in are the sweet ones we grow here in California, or their superb cousins in France when I am lucky enough to be there :)

Bit all you have done is produce 2 works (one posted on a rant site) that support your argument

Had you forgotten that the points I'm arguing against are also posted on what amounts to a (Very good) rant site? I mean, come on, here.

If you're honest, you'll at least admit to yourself that you decided to get in another gloat since you thought you got by with others. When you get brought up short by opposition, you go into sour grapes mode... (Old Aesop knew what he was on about!) and trust me on this if nothing else, I've seen that happen for longer than the internet has been around.

That's because you've read my output for some time now, and pretty much know what to expect. But let's be clear on this; you're in no position to demand it.

Well yes and no. I do anticipate you being civil, based on what I've seen of your posts. But I expect civility from everybody, just as I expect to be civil to everybody, it's just how I was raised. You're right, though, that it's not a demand, you're free to disappoint if you feel so inclined.

I could as easily cite "Understanding Vietnam" or "Fire in the Lake" to support a contrarian argument. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, you might fall over :)

BTW bit, a quick search would produce ISBN's for books denying the Holocaust ever happened. Guess by your standards that makes it fact, whereas most of know that argument is tripe...

It's an amazing process to watch, and it always comes down to this; When presented with what they ask for, liberals will invariably deny the validity of what they receive, rather than question the validity of their preconceptions.

SSDD.

I expect you to remain civil at all times.

That's because you've read my output for some time now, and pretty much know what to expect. But let's be clear on this; you're in no position to demand it.

Hopefully, my opinion will not become a thoughtcrime any time soon.

Bonus round; He's hardly the only one saying this.

Who said he was? It's informed opinion. (and, I suspect, far more historians would disagree than agree) Does not make it a "fact".

Be thankful I remmained civil, Mike.

I expect you to remain civil at all times. I'm thankful when you are informative.