Peartreed, with all respect, I can't make much logical sense out of your complaints.
peartreed wrote:By posting an article or news item of interest to share does not automatically mean the person sharing that story here for discussion endorses its author’s view, angle, politics and personal perspective.
Of course this is quite true, but a cursory reading of AD's comments clearly shows that he endorses the views in the articles he posts. AD himself makes no secret of it. So I can't understand why you keep repeating this bogus point that doesn't apply here.
peartreed wrote:They do not need to defend the content of the material posted as if it represents their own personal view, nor should they be coerced into arguing/defending its rationale and merits with clear antagonists.
Correct—no one is required to defend or discuss the views or articles they post, or to answer questions posed by other members. Anyone has the perfect right to run away and hide from meaningful discussion of the ideas they post. At the same time, no one is prohibited—nor is it any breach of discussion forum ettiquette—to discuss topics posted. In fact, those interactions are the entire idea behind a discussion forum. So I can't understand why you suggest that challenging the veracity of an idea or a news story is a bad thing. It's what we do on RI.
peartreed wrote: It is tiresome and predictable and petty in the extreme, disrupting what used to be a fairly tolerant and friendly discussion board engaged in mature and intellectual argument about the content
You refer to me, but I
do address AD's content—but AD won't (which is of course his right). It is AD who refuses to engage in mature and intellectual argument about the articles he posts, and when he does respond, he engages in subtle bullying with his name-calling insinuations—never intellectual argument. So I don't understand your complaint.
peartreed wrote: I’m interested in all articles, pro-Assad, or pro-UKUS, or simply descriptive analysis of the factions fighting and their sponsorship, in order to sort it all out.
Articles, descriptions—but not group discussion?; is that what you mean? You seem to be suggesting that group discussion is a
hindrance to understanding. I don't understand that reasoning, if there is any behind it.
And, "sorting it all out" includes dissecting articles and sources, discerning intent, weighing credibility. I do not agree that we must throw up our hands in despair and say, "We can't know anything!" as an excuse not to critically evaluate sources.
peartreed wrote:We all need to de-personalize the mean rhetoric and ridicule against imagined rivals. It reads like a high school gossip column by pimple-popping prepubescents.
Yikes. Would you like to reconsider those two sentences? Unless you mean "pimple-popping prepubescents" as a compliment and not mean rhetoric.