High Mary Anne,

Thanks for the gentle reminders. A long time ago after a large number of people jumped on EP at MSNBC defending me, I felt a little sorry for Ed and realized that despite the support I did play a part in the caustic nature of the debate. I actually listed more to those who focused on wanting an end to the flames than those who said it was EP's fault. I was also concerned because EP admits to having a weight problem and is already probably at high risk for a heart attack or stroke. The anger he seems to manifest in his posts may actually be unhealthy for him. I resolved to be far more civil. I quickly downsized the goal do to intransigence on EP's part despite what I thought were clear efforts lower the heat.

I think I generally "flame" EP about 50 to 75% less than I did before that change of heart, but I think you are more persuasive than those who made a similar case earlier. While I try to avoid the over the top insults that EP uses and focus on facts for the majority of my responses, I find it very hard not to include some low level personal jabs in self defense. I will try to lower the heat by at least an order of magnitude.

Are irony and mild sarcasm detrimental to persuasiveness and interest in your opnion or do they fall into the category of spicing things up with humor? I'm not sure what to do about Ed's state of health though as even the most impersonal statement of facts is likely to set him off when it contradicts his core stance.

Regards,
Mark