Billy Burpelson wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you did
not stay and fight.

Just asking as a disinterested observer, how could one " *stay* and
fight" if they were " *removed* at gunpoint"? It seems it would be
difficult to stay when you have been removed, does it not?


Similarly, it's difficult to be defender of democracy, risking life
and property, when one has been removed, does it not?

Which was my point.

If one insists on claiming rights to risk of life and limb, as keeper
of the flame, one must remain in order both keep the flame and face the
risk.

The issue is not whether he left or was removed. The issue is
whether, by not being there, he can't claim great risk as defender of
democracy.