You might be more accurate to note that the preponderance of the texts, concerning the new and improved revision of the revised liturgy and the need to review the revisions, have been level headed and substantive and still those learned and level voices are charged with the charge of "hysteria".
Eli, You are a relatively new poster; perhaps you are a lurker in the longer term. You may or may not be familiar with the very many threads, some very lengthy, on these matters over the past four years. I agree that there are level headed and thoughful posts, and I think we would agree that some posts miss that mark. We would probably largely, though not entirely, agree about which are which. (You might like to consider that even an argument that was reasonable on its first posting, looses its reasonableness when repeated like a mantra over a four year period, with disregard of counter-arguments). At any rate, I don't think I have charged hysteria against "learned and level voices".
Your concerns now should be to encourage those whom you defend so passionately to come foreward with substantive responses rather than wasting all of our time by falsely accusing many of us of ill, will both directly and by association.
First, as a stiff-necked Rusyn, I will admit, with some shame, that I have an inherent knee-jerk reaction against being told what I should do or concern myself with; your advice: Ne treba. (btw, I have already by the way called for a workshop). Again, I will disagree that I have made false accusations, directly.
As to false accusation by association, that is a very interesting construction. It conveys to my mind the idea of having chosen teams on the issue - with an cristicism of an argument of one's teamate, however pertinent, being taken as a criticism of everyone on the team, however impertinent. I have argued against this tendency to choose up sides, as that is that is the nuclues of division.
Some of the features of the new liturgy I really like. Some I don't. Nearly all aspects, however, strike me as the stuff about which reasonable people may differ. IMO the more important issue - the wheat - is how we may work together reasonably, so that in the end, whatever occurs, we will have a reconcilation rather than divorce. That is what I see as the true wheat. This is what I have and will continue to concern myself with on these threads.
In this regard, I am grateful for your comments to a poster "on your side" who was coming close to crossing the lines of charity; I applaud Fr. Serge's attaching the right emphasis - namely zero - on the source of an idea, versus the idea itself.
This appeal to the Church not to impose this particular liturgy on us is not going to go away. The arguments against particulars are going to gain strength as the actual text becomes public.
Furthermore, there is enough resistance among the clergy that there will be tacit if not out-right rebellion and there isn't a bishop in the Church who can be at all liturgies every Sunday to insure that this theologically unhealthy translation is observed to the letter.
Drafts of the text were posted here four years ago. I don't know that I have seen a gain of strength of argument. If priests do their own thing, so be it. That is what we have now, for better or worse. It has the advantages of putting the final pastoral decisions in the hands of those closest to the pastoral situation and averting rebellion; it has that disadvantages of perhaps meaning a continuation of less restoration and less Eastern practice rather than more in many places, and illuminating, one again, our lack of understanding of the virtue of obedience.
theologically unhealthy translation
This I do take seriously, and agree that such concerns are weighty (and wheaty). What I recall form your posts is issues with philanthropos. But I don't know, which, if any, translation meets your concerns. Please elaborate.