I fully understand your desire to debate solely "based on ideas." And surely you didn't attempt to claim that you are engaging in "an objective fashion." (although I do give you credit for being more objective than many of your DALPA colleagues here).

Funny thing is, the folks who push hardest for unconditional ideological debate are the hardcore ALPA supporters.

I don't want to know who folks are, nor divulge their identities if I did. I value my anonymity here, too.

However, I do think it's critical to know from what general perspective each of us posts.

For example, it would be big news for me to say that "Moak's constructive engagement strategy is a huge success for Delta pilots." (Which I am not).

It would be big news for Alan Shore to say "Moak's constructive engagement strategy is costing Delta pilots money and time off." (which he, so far, has not.)

It matters who says what, from where.