When I saw this post, my immediate reaction was to go to Jihad Watch and read Spencer’s version of what happened. He claims that his linking to the Facebook group in question was a mistake, and he acknowledged his mistake.

Now I don’t know enough about how Facebook works to know who is right, Robert or Charles. But, not being an expert, I feel it only appropriate to reserve judgment until I personally investigate the matter closely. After all, isn’t one of the hallmarks of honesty to vigorously hear out both sides of an argument prior to drawing conclusions?

However, I have read dozens of posts so far on this thread, one after another blasting Spencer. But not one of them has cited Spencer’s defense on his site, which leads me to conclude that not one person has bothered to read it.

I’m drawing that conclusion based on the assumption that if people had read Spencer’s defense and found it wanting, would not at least some people would have cited it on this post and refuted it.

If you reply to this post, two requests:

(1) Would you answer honestly: did you, prior to responding to this, post an attack of Spencer on this thread without first reading what he has to say on the matter?

(2) Would you please explain in greater detail that I have seen on this thread:
(a) What is Charles’ version of what exactly happened?
(b) What is Robert’s version of what exactly happened?
(c) Why it is impossible that Robert’s version is the truth?

This is a classical example of my enormous feelings of uneasiness with this website — both its webmaster and its regular posters.

And the huge irony of this is that politically, I am 100% in line with this website — it is the first website I visit daily! (Although I rarely read the comments.) For it provides the news that I want to know about that the MSM does not.