[drivebyacct2]

"People who agree with Gruber are cut from much the same cloth as people who want the choice of whether to run Flash."

Can't say I understand your sentiment. They are ideologically incompatible and driven by polar interests.

[raganwald]

In the wonderful Steve Jackson game "Illuminati," organizations have orientations like Conservative, Violent, &c. Conservative groups are aligned with other Conservative groups and opposed to Liberal groups, Peaceful groups are aligned with other Peaceful groups and opposed to Violent groups, and so forth.

There's also an orientation called "Fanatic." Fanatic is a special case because it is its own opposition. So Joggers, Trekkies, and White Supremacists are all opposed to each other by virtue of being fanatic groups.

Fnord.

[drivebyacct2]

How is wanting a choice being fanatical? Is the rhetoric really so poor that simply wanting the choice of using flash is considered fanatical?

[raganwald]

Have we circled around to some kind of violent agreement? I suggested that calling people "Minons of Gruber" is poor rhetoric. You're saying that calling people "fanatical" is poor rhetoric. Our arguments appear to be twin children of different mothers.

But just to make a very small point, I am not calling anyone fanatical. I talked about a game where it was possible for fictional groups of people to have something in common yet be opposed to each other. In that game, this happens with groups the inventor describes as fanatical.

In this particular case, I am suggesting it is entirely possible for people who agree with Dave and people who agree with Gruber to have a lot in common yet appear to be opposed in the debate. You asked how this can be the case when they appear to have opposed interests, and I will now repeat what I said above without trying to be charming.

The fact that two people appear to be opposed on a single issue does not automatically exclude the possibility that they have a great deal in common with each other.