Please provide some evidence to support your assertion.
As contrary evidence, I point to the posted article:
"The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly."
"We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers."
"If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you."
Reading comprehension issues.
It's the same euphemistic rationalization that the liberals put forth when they assert PC speech codes. Nothing in the actual text of the statement is objectionable in itself, but when taken as a whole it is a license to reject out of hand anything one doesn't agree with by assigning to the opposing argument one of the labels in the text as unacceptable, or alternatively, claiming it is opposed to one of the labels in the acceptable column.
The proof is in the pudding. Why doesn't anyone want a fact-based discussion of the parallels to the T-4 program? Don't I have any takers for a rational, logical comparison of two systems under which a government has put citizens to death by means of starvation?