The joys of anonymous comments

Dan,I frankly don’t care whether the casino comes or not. But the site you mention, http://www.casino-friend.com/readercomment_6.html,would appear to be pretty clear about this whole “KKK” canard. Just because some internet newbie allowed an inappropriate comment to remain on their site temporarily, does that mean these guys are all wearing sheets? Sometimes people of ill will get through on this site too and that’s unfortunate. There are probably plenty of good reasons to reject the casino. This red herring about the KKK is not one of them, IMHO.

Brown issues this challenge:How many times and in how many ways do I have to state that I have never said members of the organized casino oposition were racists? The challenge is simple: go over the Casino-Friend archives and find one example of this.How about this, from the editorial in Dan’s link:This is typical CERA rhetoric. They seem to believe by just saying they aren’t racist makes it so. But the if you [sic] scratch the distrust and cynicism expressed in the sentences above the stench of racism rises forth.Brown is a coward, using guilt-by-association as Dan says, playing coy by protesting, I did not call these groups racist, but other groups such as Public Eye (in a private conversation thus unverifiable) and an opinion column in an Indian newspaper call these groups racist. I looked at the CERA site. They obviously have a complaint about the issue of tribal sovereignty, but that doesn’t make them racists. It can simply be a legitimately held belief and ought to be considered so unless specific evidence that the belief is based on racism is presented. Brown of course couldn’t be bothered to do that, beyond pointing to the opinion column by Dave Lundgren, which defines any group that opposes tribal self-governance to be a “hate group” per se. But it’s enough justification for Brown to leave the accusation hanging out there, so we can smell its “stench”.The editorial “A call for CasinoFacts to repudiate bigotry, prejudice and hate” is nearly incoherent. Try parsing this tangle:If there are a few who feel that strongly, how many others of them are they that have had their underlying prejudices, based on unwarranted fears, played upon by CasinoFacts’ material?Er, how many others indeed! That’s followed by the sentence calling for the “inequitable” disavowal. Does he mean unequivocal, perhaps? The mind boggles.