A REGL of 8.5 to 8.6 for his writing compares favorably to that of others who posted. For comparison
purposes, the "Transcendental Post" had 53% passive sentences, computing to a 15.4 Reading Ease Grade
Level for analysis 1. Maximizing its paragraphs resulted in a 13.6 REGL. Let's say 14.5 or so is the
right Level. THAT post was hard to read. The 1st graphic below updates the analysis.

Note well: The software analyzes only FORM, not CONTENT. As long as the writing meets its criteria and
scores high or low on the right indices, it will be "good writing"--as far as READABILITY is concerned.
Doesn't matter whether or not the writing presents a weak or strong case to support an opinion.

Mustafa's posts turned out to be more readable than my first analysis indicated, but I will stick by my
conclusion that Mustafa's writing was BAD.

Mustafa wrote more than 25,000 words of his own. In addition to those 25,000 words, every time he quoted
someone in a post, he burdened me with something I had just recently read. As much as he wrote, I'm not
sure he told me anything I didn't already know. Not once did I say to myself, "Oh, my God, I didn't know
that!" I already knew there were some instances of hate crimes directed at American Muslims. I knew that
people were more leery of Muslims than they were on September 10, 2001. I knew that some Muslims feel
persecuted by being given dirty looks. I knew that a few Muslims have actually been persecuted.

Mustafa didn't cite sources for his facts. He didn't provide a single link to support his cause. He didn't
enlighten me. He didn't change my mind about anything. He didn't make me feel more than the least bit sorry
for him. He didn't make me laugh. He didn't make me cry. He didn't make me think very hard. He made me only
the slightest bit angry--when he threw in unnecessay attacks on President Bush--and when he told me I didn't
know how to spell my own name.

Mustafa didn't move me sufficiently for me to respond to the thread. BlueSpaderRakassan did that with a
single trumping post in another thread. (Mustafa didn't bother to check it out.) My own rather lengthy
responses were more meta-responses to the nature of the thread than responses to Mustafa's argument.
Content was dealt with in a single paragraph: "Yes, there's some 21st century 'racism,' from all
ethnicities, races, and religions. There's more anti-Muslim thinking now than there was September 10,
2001. We'd be foolish to claim or expect otherwise. Ever hear of Charles Darwin? But I don't see it as
the big problem for Muslims that Mustafa sees." When he was banned from posting, I barely noticed. I
eventually put up another metapost. (Then I got his email saying that my software's analysis of his
writing was wrong (It was.) and chastising me for not defending his "freedom of speech" on military.com
forums.)

Another view of why I found Mustafa's writing to be BAD. Mustafa's "FACTS" did not support his claim
that WIDESPREAD bigotry (racism) has resulted in SIGNIFICANT unjust treatment of American Muslims--for
that is, indeed, what he had to be saying. (Otherwise, why didn't he shrug it off as "a few racist
bigots and crazies in America," just as he shrugged off that "a few Muslims are radical and dangerous
extremists--or
are just sort of crazy"?) He lacked enough of what I will call TRUE FACTS to support such a broad case.
He failed to cite a single instance in which he was personally persecuted for being a Muslim. Many of
the FACTS he chose dealt with persons who stand accused but are not yet convicted of crimes. He didn't
mention that many, many persons are arrested and are later released without trial because they are
innocent.

(It's happened to me--and yes, I felt persecuted and I felt that I had been profiled.) Lacking
sufficient EVIDENCE of persecution, much of what he wrote was SPIN, PROPAGANDA, an unconvincing and
emotional appeal.

To me, for his writing to be GOOD, he needed to present FACTS showing significant American Muslim
mistreatment. He did not do that. We are a nation of almost 300 million people. We've had only a handful
of cases where someone struck back at a Muslim. Given the provocation of 2998 dead at the hands of 19
Muslims, the anti-Muslim response has been minimal. The response was far, far removed from what it has
been in the past. We still have a long way to go, but we've also come very, very far.

In 1921, whites in Tulsa attacked the black Greenwood community following a REPORT that a black man
assaulted a white woman. An ALLEGATION

only. The June 5, 1921, _Tulsa Tribune_ reported: "Late last night Major Paul R. Brown forwarded a
formal report to Brig. Gen. Barrett at
Oklahoma City fixing the total number of dead at 26, 10 whites and 26 negroes." One ALLEGATION, 26
blacks DEAD. The "Black Wall Street" destroyed, never to recover. Against 2998 DEAD at the hands of 19
Muslims on September 11, 2001. No, the response has not been that of racists and bigots. It's been a
very measured response to the shock of a brutal attack. The electricity analogy was a good one.

Seems to pretty much boil down to just another guy who wants to be a victim. When I asked my son, who
was having severe health problems at the time, "Do you think you have Gulf War Syndrome?" he responded,
"Dad, I refuse to be a victim." We need more men like that. We have more than enough like Mustafa. I was
wrong about his writing; I was wrong about thinking I might enjoy breaking bread with him. I wouldn't.