okay, the way I read RM’s money shot was basically that organized Jewish groups really only protect themselves and never lift a finger to defend cases of people who are unfairly accused of anti-semitism.

In RM’s case, he believes he was one of those people and he is therefore going to sit idly by if the tables are ever turned.

***Not worrying about whether RM is correct about perceptions of himself***, I noticed that in all the ink spilled over this there has been no one, not one single person, who has commented on that charge.

Basically the charge is “organized jewish groups only look out for themselves so they should hardly expect others to help them if the time ever comes”.

This isn’t the only time this charge have been levied. But yet, not one blogger has commented on that. Everybody seems to have studiously avoided this one particular thing.

In the interests of not being bland, why don’t you write up a blog post on that charge?

or what would be reasons be for not commenting?

Jay, put the cart behind the horse. The particular point of view is why there’s a formal association in the first place. People of broadly like mind get together and form precisely that association.

As for Cherniak, if he puts his finger into my own living room, he’ll get badly bitten. All of his self-puffery had no effect whatsoever on our decision. None.

The problem with formal associations is that they have a natural tendency to impose a particular point of view, a sacred set of truths, on their members. While this makes everyone feel as if they belong it stifles discussion.

In the early days of the Canadian blogosphere this function was performed by links, comments, fiskings and was informed by a sense of forbearance and fun; now it is a 5:1 vote. Pretty lame.

Cherniak is a sort of super scold reaching out from his living room into yours to waive the fickle finger of political correctness.

The blogosphere is just as open today as it was last week. Anybody can set up a blog, post what they like, offend any one they choose, and get away with it, too, unless criminal activity is involved.

But bloggers are not atoms moving around randomly. From time to time, mimicking Darwinian evolution, clumps of bloggers appear in the cyber-soup, multi-cellular organisms with distinctive characteristics.

Now, what makes these little and not-so-little clumps distinctive? Why, a shared sense of purpose, or a common set of values and principles. It’s called freedom of association, Jay, and with that freedom comes its obverse: the freedom not to associate. Not having those creatures around would make for a bland blogoverse indeed, full of protozoa going nowhere.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean putting up with racism in my own livingroom. I can be “challenged” enough by such thinking without that. The blogosphere is a big place, and no one is being shut down or shut up. What more do you want?

PS: Leave Cherniak out of this, please. His contributions confound the debate.