To set the record straight (and to hopefully reduce the number of inquiries I keep getting), I want to categorically declare that I am not MidTowner.

There have been repeated references and comments on threads implying or outright claiming that I was MidTowner "in disguise." In addition, I've received numerous Private Messages inquiring or even accusing me of being MidTowner.

It seems that for some it's meant as a compliment and for others it's meant as a criticism. In either case, from what I've gleaned from these comments, MidTowner may have a similar philosophy regarding discussions that I hold to — namely, if you're going to make a bold statement, be willing to back it up. I hope to have the opportunity to actually visit with MidTowner in the future to learn for myself what he brought to the discussion.

If my challenges of fellow members' comments raise some eyebrows, allow me to briefly explain where I'm coming from. No matter which side of the fence someone is on, if they make a questionable, outrageous or unsupportable claim, I will challenge that person. In our country today, there are talk radio shows and cable "news" shows that offer alot of commentary with little regard to how accurate it is; guest commentators are rarely challenged when they say something demonstrably false or misleading. Consequently, viewers (or listeners of talk radio) are left with the impression the information is correct, when in reality it is not.

Anyone can say anything about anything. Just because someone says it, doesn't make it true. If someone can provide some factual references, sources or historical evidence to back up what they say, it lends weight to their comment and argument. If someone wants to convince me of something, I'll listen to what they have to say and ask for corraborating "witnesses" or evidence to back it up. The more they are able to do that, the more credence I can give their viewpoint.

So, if that's what MidTowner was doing, then I applaud him. Insisting on factual support of an arguable position is good, reasoned debate. Ignoring facts is characteristic of weak positions and ignorant debate. My challenges are not meant to be personal attacks, but the expose the weakness of one's argument. A solid position can withstand challenges, because there is corraborating information that validates that position.

In conclusion, as I said in another thread earlier, as God as my witness, I am not MidTowner.