Both, of course, are good people. Dan, in what may have been his inaugural post to L-I, attempted to defend Sid's stupid provocations and sectarian attitude. My initial reaction to Dan's post was that it was too stupid to merit a reply. What struck me is that Dan is very sincere. The arguments that Dan uses are indeed bankrupt.
Most people here have no problem seeing that.
But Dan did appear to put some thought into his post. Now it is understandable that Dan's post could give rise to anger. The tone of Dan's post was actually much calmer than Martin's reply. And Dan is asking interesting questions. It is only worth replying to Dan in any detail if Dan demonstrates that he has the ability to listen.