hh: I was at the demonstration, too, as much as any one person can claim to be "at" at event that covered the entirety of downtown. Two of the windows I saw broken were by people without your indicated disguises, which I remember because it seemed pretty stupid to me at the time.

Yeah, it was the kind of stupidity that can happen at large demonstrations -- and not comparable to some blogger instructing cowards to sneak up and slash windows in the dead of night.

hh: So from what you're saying, you're not objecting to the vandalism or threats (those were made during and after the protest, too; maybe you missed reading all of the protest signs?), but to the fact that the extreme right is better organized at it, and apparently serious, rather than full of passive-aggressive sloganeering. Interesting argument.

Yes, I do object to vandalism, threats, and personal nastiness coming from the left, and I've gone on the record as objecting to it.

And yes, strange as it may seem to you, I am much more alarmed by the fact that the right, as you observe, is "better organized at it, and apparently serious" about hurting people.

hh: I'm not claiming that it's righteous, or right; these guys are as wingnutty as some of the protesters were (and are). I'm saying that you (and, by extension, the extreme left) have no claim to the high ground on matters of composed behavior. In essence, I'm pointing out that you're being hypocritical.

Since my entire point has been that the right wing violence poses a greater danger than left wing violence, how have I been "hypocritical?" You've just admitted that right wing violence is better organized and more serious about its aims (i.e., hurting and intimidating people.)