[Excellent smiling pic was here.]

I got an email from Tom in the last 24 hours, concerned about some nasty threats arising from the Net. I said that of course I would remove the pic. What's more important is that we're friends. Blessings and prayers to you, always. That's the safest place, in the arms of Jesus.

I've taken several days (eight, to be precise) to breathe deeply. It is perhaps not coincidental that the Montgomery County, Md. sniper attacks you've all no doubt read about took place within an easy walk of the Glenment and Aspen Hill Md. neighborhoods where I grew up, where my parents still live, and where the picture that used to be here was taken.

The enthusiasm of the national and international media to rush to a good-guy/bad-guy wrapup, the international ferver to "punish" someone, the oh-so-convenient "connection" to "Islamic Terrorists" that is even now gripping the world's media is, in my view, sending our world cascading downward into the same spiral of dehumanization, demonizing, and subsequent violence that has characterized the violence in the Middle East and in the host's own territory of Ireland for so long.

I cannot in good conscience continue to participate in a forum which, in my view, marginalizes and excludes the voices like my own who plead for love, peacemaking, forgiveness, and justice while simultaneously placing front-and-center those voices who advocate fear, hatred, violence, punishment, vengeance, and continued oppression.

I've come to the now well-contemplated conclusion that this site is, intentionally or not, being crafted by its hosts to reflect a worldview that I find personally, religiously, and morally repugnant. I cannot and will not, therefore, continue to participate.

I've resurfaced my comments from 16 October so that they are once again visible. I would ask the hosts and various contributers to please not remove them again, unless the very presence of this criticism is itself deemed to be too outspoken a criticism of the site.

I would note that most wiki's, including Ward's original, follow a reasonably explicit and intentional custom that the user page of a participant (such as this Tom Stambaugh page) is "off-limits" for "refactoring", editing, and similar efforts to mold words into the form the hosts deem "appropriate". I would hope that the hosts respect that tradition and custom here, especially since I have been so careful to as best I can honestly, openly, and sincerely conform to the practices of this site -- specifically including my use of my real name and identity.

-- Tom Stambaugh

The host seems to have determined, as nearly as I can tell, that:

• Those of us who do not share his particular projection of "evil" onto an individual, government, or deed (such as Hearing Zosia) as presented in Concrete Picture Of Evil are immersed in "idealistic and escapist worldviews that deny evil"

• Those of us on why who are sympathetic to the views expresed by the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, those who are sympathetic to the desires of moderate Muslim leaders who seek to build bridges to Western leaders, and those who find Bush's "War on terrorism" morally bankrupt are somehow supportive of the murder of innocents in Bali.

• Those of us who reject his projection of noble and glorious ideals onto George W. ("Dubya") Bush and passionately advocate this rejection share an "ideological link" to al-Qaeda.

As nearly as I can tell, the reasoning runs something like this:

1. "Satan" is real, personifiable, and currently acting through Muslim terrorists such as al-Queda and presumably Saddam Hussein.
2. George Bush is fighting Satan.
3. Those who disagree with either (1), (2) or both are themselves in league with Satan -- including the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Since I am happy to plead "guilty" on all three bullets -- I reject the characterization of evil expressed in Concrete Picture Of Evil, I enthusiastically applaud the courage demonstrated by Chairman Berge, and I find the host's view of George W. ("Dubya") Bush hopelessly naive and ill-informed, I have no choice but to conclude that I am one of the targets of the outbursts of October 16.

While this establishment does belong to the host, and as I have said before, he may certainly manage it any way he chooses, it is also quite true that I am under no obligation to continue to participate here.

As nearly as I can tell, the host has basically accused me of being:

• idealistic and escapist
• in league with Satan
• supportive of terrorism
• linked to al Qaeda

Sorry Richard, but the crowd in your establishment just got one voice smaller. -- Tom Stambaugh

Much of the above did not remotely or fairly represent my views. But I still loved the passion with which Tom spoke. -- ever humble yet Draconian Host

Tom, I am very happy that we have had your voice here and that, because of my hosting policy generally, it will be possible to hear it long into the future.

I was not entirely surprised at your departure, for this reason: your inability to take a joke against yourself and others of like mind in Reshaping HQ, now in Reshaping The War. When I mentioned the Suffering Of The Democrats and you took offence at that I expected that sooner or later you would take your voice away too. There was a small resonance for me with the lack of humor in the Verdict On Kulisz, though I consider you a much better contributor in almost every way and, unlike rk, I have taken no steps at all aimed specifically against you, apart from the minor and everyday one of moving one large insert to a separate page.

Everyone's worldview is challenged here. From time to time, this has even happened to my own. I wish you the very best. I hope you noticed that, much to my surprise, I heard Joe Zawinul at Ronnie Scott's the day you first wished to withdraw. I was thinking of you very much as I did so and the thoughts were of a positive kind. -- Richard Drake

Although there was a falling out at the end, Why Kudos for the incredibly polite, sensitive and respectful way Tom went about so many tasks here, for example in Signatures Added and Why Hosting Analogies, yet showing just the right amount of teeth in cleaning up the work of Ste Glover in Osama bin Laden.

And Tom's criticism of me after he left, publically and privately, about Why's obsession with favorite figures like Winston Churchill, later generalised into a Claimed Obsession With Sixty Years Ago, was the single most productive criticism - albeit public, hurtful, damaging and I believe wrong! - of the countless received during the early years of Why.