My main point has nothing to do with whether Greenwald has knowledge about the "Telecom issue" or even with whether his position is substantively right or wrong.  It has rather to do with HOW he pursues it.  The fact that he chooses to pursue most if not all of his issues primarily through name-calling and demonization of all opponents rather than with substantively engaging and refuting their arguments remains unfortunate.  The fact that he is rewarded with acclaim and influence for doing so is toxic.

It is true that not all criticism or disagreement is symptomatic of "derangement".  It is when the criticism and disagreement escalates past the substantive to the personal that it becomes "derangement".  It is when criticism is constantly premised on double standards or shifting standards that it becomes what I would call "derangement".  It is when the search for negative stories (and negative spins to positive stories) becomes a constant daily quest that I would call it "derangement".

And I don’t think your attempt to conflate reasonable disagreements with obsessive, repetitive bashing succeeds, Michael.  "Pointing our hypocrisy or dishonesty" isn’t derangement, that is true.  But pointing it out obsessively over and over and over and over and over day-in and day-out and/or using inconsistent or disingenuous standards IS. I have noted and appreciated the fact that your more recent commentaries of the last few weeks have been much more even-handed and substantive even while critical. But I think “ODS” is a fair description of where you were for some time before that.

Anyway, as I said in the post, I can’t change anyone else’s choice to indulge in what I think is "derangement" or other pathologies of the political blogosphere.  What I CAN choose is whether to participate in the shell game myself any more.  I choose not to. Instead, I choose to call it out and dissent.

I’ve been repeatedly accused of ODS for actively debunking silly Obama rumors.

LOL!

It sure isn’t, but True Believers do not make such fine distinctions. Hell, I’ve been repeatedly accused of ODS for actively debunking silly Obama rumors.

Thanks.  And I do agree with (one of) the larger point(s); derangement in general is a bad thing, and is the quickest path to a meaningless debate.  And there is  Obama Derangement out there.

the only documentary record there is  on the issue says otherwise.

That is indeed a very fair remark. Pointing out hypocrisy or dishonesty is not the same as ODS.