My friend, you have been a generous contributor to discussion and a welcome guest here, and I wish it to continue. We may happen to have differences from time to time, but we can set a good example and be civil about it. The position you have taken here in the response seems to be the opposite end of what Klaytonus believes. Perhaps it can be tempered a little? I don’t think that anyone, especially with a presence like Klaytonus, is “not someone worth bothering with”, for the simple reason that engagement and understanding must take place for the greater good of polytheism, this nascent movement of ours. Taking a distance, while inevitable sometimes, does not lead to any good if it becomes habitual. I refuse to adopt the extreme position of Klaytonus and say that the other side needs to be “ridiculed” and “torn down” because then there will be endless conflict. Both sides of any debate are bound to remain, but if they come to blows rather than debate (the ideal would be discuss), what good will come of it? We live in a world of different perspectives, and we need to be questioning why both sides are giving each other a “fit” rather than a “trigger” (to use your terms); as I see it, the former results from willful opposition whereas the latter from serious disagreement. The latter is bound to happen from time to time, but at least we can avoid the former even if there is an impulse towards it. I must confess I was in somewhat of a fit when I saw the low insults and twisted arguments used in Klaytonus’ article, but I didn’t hasten to write until my thoughts were cool.