Originally Posted by 2wins
Without the benefit of talking to Phil, it seems to me that while this can be construed as baiting, it is out in the open, up front and establishes a clear invitation to debate Phil's position...
I don't mind in the least whether or not it's bait, 2wins, nor do I imagine that the "target species" is overly concerned. All I was doing was pointing out that, after an initial fast-read, I thought it was low-quality bait and not particularly well played.

Unlike Iss, Phil seems to be making no bones about his position. I know you will defend Iss to the core, but his rhetoric is full of traps and pitfalls.
I disagree, 2wins, as I do not find his writing(s) to present any kind of minefield provided one reads carefully and pays attention to exactly what has been said. He is very precise in his meanings, and any problems generally arise because someone has tried to reword or redefine what he has actually said.

As to defending him, as I said on the "roots" thread, I do not feel any obligation to defend him nor do I feel that he needs defending. My concern with that thread was that I knew his position was being misrepresented or misinterpreted because of the conniption over the Buchanan article. As it turns out, I believe that - per Issodhos' reiteration late yesterday of the reason and the intention behind the buchanan article - I was 115% correct.

That said, in reference to another of your posts on a different thread, I am sure that Iss is quite a poet indeed.
Yes, he is. He often brings other poets and - unfortunately, all too rarely - some of his own work to our other shared forum.

Life should be led like a cavalry charge - Theodore Roosevelt