Sorry, Robert. But you have inadvertently, and I am sure, innocently, created a situation where self-censorship on my part is now inevitable.

There is nothing I can do or say that will not seem like either an unreasonably petulant and overly aggressive response, or a meek and craven submission to editorial authority. Either way, the legitimacy of the thought is devalued, made less genuine. Even if no one reading me thinks that, I'll never be sure myself how others interpret me. That can't help but modulate my message. Even now, I feel personally responsible that you have wasted a post trying to charm me into staying rather than exposing Tom's Young Republican/Junior Achievement nonsense for the puerile adolescent fantasies they are.

A statement taken out of context can be deliberately misleading, but altering the context itself makes every subsequent statement potentially misleading. Even a noble refusal to engage in meaningless controversy may be interpreted as cowardice, or intellectual inability to respond effectively. And even if it isn't, I'll never be sure it isn't interpreted that way.
And of course, any vigorous objection or rebuttal on my part will always come across as a shabby attempt to silence an opponent unfairly. Even if my reader never feels that, I will always suspect he does, and that will affect how or what I write.

These comments may appear to be overly introspective, pointless philosophical navel-gazing, but I know precisely what I am talking about it, even if I can't properly articulate it.

Except for an occasional aphorism, I can no longer effectively communicate here. I can only write SETI messages now, not conversations. And the speed of light is too slow to wait for a response.