Like I said, I’m trying to figure out where you think we disagree.

Further, I think the campaign you refer to in your entry was particularly offensive in that it consisted of self-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion deciding she shouldn’t be availed of the opportunity to earn a living BECAUSE of her (yes, odious) views – pretty much regardless of the venue, topic for discussion, etc. (And I can’t help but wonder how one gets out of purgatory with the offended arbiters of acceptable commentary – apologize to them?)

Interestingly, the same Net Nannies that go after her sweeping (yes, odious – see above) anti-Muslim-Aboriginal-Chinese views, have never once pointed out her equally sweeping sexism. To borrow a tactic frequently used by that sort – I guess they agree with her views on women? I mean, they haven’t said they don’t…

Still, I’m working on it. Defending Shaidle’s right to appear on public television is pretty minor stuff, but I’m pretty minor stuff, too, and offensive to somebody, I’m sure.

And, as we all know, no one enjoys being offended more than the offended.

The question, as posed, is kind of impossible to answer. But in the particular case under discussion, the panelist were a cut above Kathy Shaidle because they didn’t make appallingly stupid observations, or use embarassingly flawed non-logic to make their points.

“They scare me – not Kathy Shaidle, who is, afterall, just stating her beliefs.”

I guess you’ve read the quotes from Shaidle compiled by Kinsella, et al. Her “beliefs” – about blacks, Muslims, immigrants, orientals, First Nations – are appalling. Sorry, I can’t see her as a victim here. I am delighted that she got to appear, and delighted that she fell on her face. Does that make me a – sob – bad person?

“It was an interesting quote for two reasons: the accuracy of her self-description, and her suggestion that others “don’t often extend [her] the same courtesy”.” Ha! Thamks for the smile.

@SL: nice!

JB