Again, this is hopeless.
Um, why do you say that? Linus and Oblio are just pointing out the historical facts that you fail to see. The facts within their context need to be considered.
The context originally was Orthodox
evangelism. I originally remarked that it seemed to me that the converts I knew tended to be people who used to be Protestant (and I would add, active in their churches), and I brought up the matter of evangelizing to the unchurched and total unbelievers.
This was almost immediately sidetracked by arguments against me about Evil Protestant Missionaries In Orthodox Territories. Now, I have no control over these people, and I feel no responsibility for these people, and it most assuredly is not my church that is sending them. And if Orthodoxy cannot deal with them as a fact of life, but is reduced to having to call out the authorities on them, that it's going to lose potential converts. I could go on at length about the problems that state churches in general paint themselves into, all of which has no relevance in the context of Orthodox evangelism in the USA. And in any case I have to expect that if I mention Protestant state churches, their situations are going to be dismissed as irrelevant to the situations of the One True State Churches anyway, so why should I bother?
Now, I can suggest a lot of things that might be helpful. Making a presence in public festivals is surely a good idea (some Catholic confraternity always has a table at the county fair, for instance). Worship materials adapted for visitors strike me as a good idea as well. I remember going to Holy Cross in Linthicum (the M-G's church) in the days when they were still trying to get over having been Episcopalians. They were using looseleaf-bound service books with extensive commentary on the various parts of the service. What was intended to help the newly converted would surely help the visiting stranger.
And as I said, as an Anglican I have an investment in effective Orthodox evangelism to the unchurched.
The point is, that's not the way the discussion went. It seems that what other people want to do is denouce Protestants. In my opinion, a lot of hand-wringing about Protestant missionaries in Russia isn't going to solve mission problems here-- or there. And it should be everyone else's opinion too, because that's the way the world works.
There is not enough time in the world if, every time I mention the word "Protestant" even in passing, a bunch of people jump all over me, and I have to hack my way through a bunch of excessive generalizations and the impulse to denounce Protestants in general as a bunch of undifferentiated heretics. I've been effectively told that there's no point in any mention of the Anglicans because any position they offer is irrelevant (and wrong) simply because they offer it. I cannot defend Protestantism in general, and I've given plenty of reasons why the demand is unreasonable. I'm not going to mount a spirited defense of Anglicanism in general because (a) I don't feel his is the place to do so, and (b) in any case I am so outnumbered here that to be able to keep up with all the responses I'd have to quit my job-- and make sure that all the opposition were working enough overtime to slow them down to a manageable rate of responses. None of these reasons are being respected. Under the circumstances, discourse is impossible, and further conversation is hopeless.