I haven't forgotten the thing about critics making baseless assertions about what the NDP could have done, never bothering to reply or contest when the assertions are questioned, and continuing to repeat them.
Which Unionist in turn essentially questioned as an empty assertion of mine.
I think that plays an importnat role in stoking fires. But that might be because its my peeve. I mean, critics don't get called on in any sustained way those toss-off assertions about what the NDP could have done in situation X. So if it doesnt come up that often, how could it be a big driver of sdieways discussions?
Anyway, I think its relevant. But I recognize it may be a distraction from the larger attempt here at identifying differences... in hopes that people can approach them more productively.