Yeah, I agree. I think that sometimes part of the problem is that some people really are anti-western, no matter what the situation. But even people who mean well, like me?, we aren't very precise when we say "the west". What we normally mean is that "the west" has a common cultural, philosophical, and religious heritage and so came to approach subjects from the same vantage point, even if they often came to very different conclusions. The east learned to think about things differently, and so not only sometimes came to different conclusions, but more importantly asked wholly different questions and approached things from a whole other vantage point. More specifically (IMO), in the west the tendency towards Roman culture prevailed, which meant on emphasis on law, order, and the intellect; while in the east, the tendency was towards Greek and Near Eastern culture, which meant an emphasis on philosophy, conciliarity, and action/belief working together.
This is debatable, but perhaps if we said stuff like this people would understand that we're not just trying to knock "the west" down for no good reason, but because we really do think we are thinking from different perspectives and have to acknowledge that if we are to come to some sort of understanding. You can't come to any type of meaningful agreement if you differ in your premises; or leastwise you are building a house of sand that will eventually crumble. That's one reason I'm very much in favor of Orthodox Christians doing studies of Bl. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc., and Catholics doing studies of Sts. Phtoius, Gregory Palamas, etc. I get the feeling that, on the net anyway, a lot of people blast the saints from the "other side" without having actually taken hte time to investigate those saints. God forgive me, I know I've done that.