And, now, what do we call this tactic? When someone lies deliberately and then one of his followers raises a different issue and makes insinuations about the person who uncovers the lie? Isn’t it called a “red herring”?

Have a nice day, Pete.

(As a fan of Lachmann, I just kept my mouth shut most of the time.)

Seen in this light, the spitballs that frequently fly out of LvMI are not entirely unexpected, even if they are disappointing.

Jonathan’s concern about turning libertarian students away is correct. Especially if one’s outreach extends beyond one’s home culture, one should avoid initiating confrontation.

One does not invalidate one’s message by stating it politely. (I do not imply appeasement here. Sometimes, pushing back or defending a friend forcefully is called for; stomping around like a Klingon in Hobbiton is not.)

It is particularly troubling, when one says of one’s associate, “Oh, that’s just [name] being [name].” No. That’s [name] being unnecessarily unpleasant.

I am not so sure that one should go as far as to call Lew Rockwell a friend of terrorism. I am sure that he has certain convictions which he has not bothered to fact check. Although this certainly puts a dent in his reputation, I don’t consider them mortal wounds. He has, time and time again, shown great wisdom in other areas of politics and libertarianism.

In any case, I am not sure why both sides are taking these exchanges personally. Although it is positive that great libertarian thinks such as Tom Palmer and Lew Rockwell are consistently criticizing each other, I am not sure that it is equally as beneficial to do this in such a way that it would turn libertarian students away from one or the other. Instead, there should be a focus on collecting the best information from all libertarian scholars. I think that my impartiality has allowed me to do just this, making me much wiser than I would have otherwise been.