"There is absolutely no other way to use that term than in the negative and as a verbal weapon. It is only used to criticize, imply contempt, belittle, or make situations worse."

I would agree that it may be used most oftenly like this. But I do not think it is impossible to use the term without being intentionally negative.

In fact, it somewhat reminds of another issue---the Confederate flag. I know many people who believe that the CBF is inherently negative and oppose it in virtually every context. I also know many people who defend the flag, and argue that hate groups have hijacked the symbol for their own purposes, thus giving it an improper negative stereotype.

Can the CBF be displayed without promoting white supremacy? Of course! It all depends on how it is used and the context. Similarly, can the term "neo-Confederate" be used without intending to portray the subject as a "neo-Nazi" or belittle them? I believe so (although it would have to be done carefully), since it also depends on how it is used and the context.

Again, I do not use the term personally because of various problems with it. But I do not believe that it must yet be written off as an absolutely corrupt or inaccurate title---even if some people have chosen to spout it off so irresponsibly.

"If you are not emotionally attached to history why are you on this board, why does it take you hundreds of pointless words to formulate your argument? No human is without emotion, feeling or desire, even trained historians."

I never said I was not emotionally attached to history. I said I was not emotionally attached to the previously mentioned positions (those "pointless" words should have made that clear, LOL). I would say that I am very attached to history. It is my passion. And I have emotional ties like others. I try to prevent those ties from compromising my historical analysis. I cannot say that it is always successful, but I make a concerted effort. Those who place their emotions at the forefront of their approach to history, I believe, compromise their objectivity greatly and weaken their ability to analyze history accurately.