Everyone on the Fray knows, or should know, that San is a troll.

That said, I actually think the inclusion of the link about sexual abuse allegations was rather gratuitous to your overall point. If the allegations had been proven to be true, then you could (and, I assume, would) have said so, either in your article or in your Fray post. I haven't clicked the link in question (and I won't, as nothing you've said thus far has struck me as compelling enough to do so), so perhaps you think that disqualifies my objection.

San's point (as if it matters any more, or ever did) was actually never answered at all, mostly because it intentionally misrepresented the paragraph it referenced. The two sentences he quotes are taken from an entire paragraph listing the ways in which the lawbreaking of the Amish is tolerated. The last sentence refers to the rest of the paragraph, not just the previous sentence.

But then San damn well knew that, as any good troll would. One imagines he read the article several dozen times (or, as a true master of his craft, just once) to find two sentences which, when taken out of context, would lead to a false conclusion. Taking that false conclusion to have been yours, he then argues disingenuously against it, thereby causing the ensuing madness (of which I am now a part).

<sigh>

San, you got me. (Hell, you even got the author of the piece, assuming "wuster" isn't an impostor.)