I think I have amply demonstrated that the original poster comes across as that, and he made no persuasive arguments, just postured and condemned people for sticking to their guns.

Again, this is the original poster. The very best possible interpretation you can put on his condemnation of two sides based on two periodicals he claims to be reading for the first time, indicates he is not taking into account the realities of human behavior and emotion when he denigrates both sides for their criticism of one another.

But that is not the original poster's position. He in no way indicated he was seeking a middle ground - he specifically attacked a particular tactic of firmly stating a position and criticizing opponents or unpalatable strategies, and in doing so, committed his own sin by attacking those who had a different position than his.

The hypocrisy in this original post was evident, however. There was no position on which he advocated a middle ground. Rather he condemned a style of rhetoric and castigated those who criticize those with a different viewpoint...which is exactly what he was doing with that post. While you are correct that not everyone in the middle is a hypocrite, the original poster demonstrates hypocrisy in his indulgence in exactly what he criticizes his opponent for. He's the guy who says "That scumbag better not stoop to name calling!"

Well, I'm not trying to save anyone's soul. I'm simply sick of being attacked for holding a point of view and seeing this sort of rhetoric get a pass as if those who use it have legitimately claimed some sort of high ground, when all they are doing, more often then not, is trying to circumvent opposition to their own positions, usually by calling the other side obstructionist, as if that is an inherently bad thing. Being obstructive to bad policies is the best thing you CAN be, and claims like those made by the author of the original post are used to make it appear that the status quo on a particular issue is automatically at fault and a solution MUST be found, when in fact, there is honest debate on whether or not a solution is needed.

Yes, I'm like the animal in that French song - I'm so treacherous that when I'm attacked, I have the nerve to defend myself. This is yet another thing the original poster was doing! He was painting those who adhere to a particular ideal or position as bad for taking a different perspective than his own. As for me, I did NOT do this, and even cited positions completely at odds with my own in my rebuttal as examples. I am a person who takes positions and strongly criticizes those with opposing ones, but I think I demonstrated that I respect those on the opposite side's sincerity. The original poster on the other demonstrated only an arrogant presumption that there could be no good reason for us to be so firmly entrenched and vehemently critical of each other.