So what you're saying is, Valigator, that you are a sophist – you like to argue but there is nothing really of substance there. There is a reason sophists were not respected by the Hellenes, and you have provided exact evidence as to why that was.

I like crazy people. Sometimes. I mean, they're challenging.

You've used everything from personal insults to bad language…everything, EXCEPT answering the question I've put across to you.

You would like to think of yourself as "educated", but you couldn't even gauge that I am a WOMAN, from my name and not a "guy".

Since you've haven't given us your side of the argument, making an easy escape, and still have had the audacity of insulting this blog's owner, I'll call you "flippant" and "evasive". Howz that?

I guess you don't have an answer.
Valigator: "but I can see this is a no-win blog,"…perfect response for when you don't have an answer.

You are afraid that we may find good points again to come up with an argument against you, and so you've tried to run away, tail between legs. LOL.

Unless you can make us run with shame, by giving us a mighty convincing argument for your support and PERCEPTION of the Confederate Flag, you've LOST the debate.

Look, this blog is about debates and discussions and not about dotty, idiots like you, who come in, shout their mouths off, CANNOT give us an answer, and then think that they've won.

From your attitude here, I can only imagine the stuff you must be ranting about on your blogs; one of your blogs had a pretty short shelf-life, is it not? Arrested Development. LOL. I've been there and have had a look around.

You have lost. Bye, bye. Rant with out reason, somewhere else. All the best. And GOOD riddance, to BAD rubbish.

Second, I have noticed that it seems to be my month for reaping abuse on my own blog. I was in a hurry this morning when I answered so I didn't take the time to say this but I won't tolerate that here. The rules of hospitality will be observed. I you disagree, then disagree, but respectfully. I did not insult you, Valigator, when I answered your comment.

Third, I just want to say that in my experience, the first one to accuse somebody of being childish is themselves either a child or is acting childish, and when somebody accuses somebody else of lacking scholarly erudition, quite often they themselves fail to come up to scratch in the education department.

Finally, Indrani, thank you for standing up for me. It speaks well of you (not that I needed any convincing after all this time).

Please answer the question I asked you.

You said "For those of us who's roots surely are Southern, this isnt what the flag represents to us."

Could you tell me what the Confederate flag represents to you?

Another thing. You are not a regular commenter on this blog. Unless you read all the previous posts by Hrafnkell (you have spelled his name wrong incidentally), you cannot gauge how much of a scholar he is.

You've only jumped into ONE discussion, so you have no right to abuse Hrafnkell by calling him a "wannabe historian".

You don't know him. So stop judging.

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

SLAVERY. You can call it states rights if you want, but it's the right of states to own slaves. There isn't really anything to argue about here. It is what it is, as they say.