The only ad hominem attack I made was on Jerome Corsi, and I think he's got a thick enough skin to handle it as he hands out that sort of stuff for a living (maybe JD as well but we trade comments occasionally and there is nothing malicious in it and he doesn't seem to be offended by it).

I wasn't trying to "label" anyone and I was using categorisations which most of the recipients would use themselves (except for the conspiracy theorist and fascist descriptions perhaps, but I still think they are accurate).

If you go over to Anthropik for example you'll find they weren't offended by my description (and it prompted a bit of introspection there) and that they refer to themselves as primitivists in their own writing.

Similarly, if you go over to Lew Rockwell you'll find they refer to themselves as Libertarians - I'm using their label, not creating one - and they'd propbably agree with my description of their interpretation of peak oil too.

So the "circular argument" is unfounded - its just a simple statement of facts from my point of view. I don't claim my words are profound but you really don't seem to have got my point.

In any case, the intent wasn't to criticise or say that anyone's beliefs are right or wrong - just to note that there is a fair amount of comfirmatory bias in a lot of people's observations and a lack of objectivity which tends to make assessing the reality of the situation pretty difficult.

And I'm certainly not trying to be a post-modernist interpreter of peak oil - it was just an idle late night rant...