This is no buttering up! just a moment of truth.

Submitted by Harrak (Canada), Nov 9, 2006 at 23:23

Dr Pipes,

After a deep thought of what you wrote in this page, I became convinced that you are the only - so far I have read to - artist that can write something today well argued to the point of convincing. Subsequently, you are able to write something opposite to what you wrote before. But the point is that the reader is unable to prove your contradiction. I know this is hard to explain; however, in the law world, I can compare this phenomena to a circumstancial non-material evidence that has no value.

In other words, I, as a reader find contradictions in your views, state them, but I find myself unable to academically well agrue the existence of such contradictions..From a philosophical chamber I salute you on this, knowing that this is something much touched in law and politics and very hardly seen in academics.

Bravo.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Daniel Pipes replies:

I guess a back-handed compliment is better than none at all. I do not claim complete consistency, but I can't imagine what of my writings is "opposite" to this article.