> People who are ruthlessly cruel to strangers on the Internet are, IMHO, driven by lesser extremes of the same deficiencies of character that make people terrorists. So he didn't crash a plane into your house. He took enough glee in attacking just as viciously with words. By doing so, he gives up his own dignity and any basis by which any intelligent person could take him seriously.
>

What you say is true in that he "gave up his own dignity" by sabotaging his own words. Evidently he's his own worst enemy. Despite the muddled message, though, one cannot squarely say that he gave up "all basis" to which an intelligent person could take him seriously. If we are as intelligent as we appear to claim, then it shouldn't be too hard to separate even a distasteful medium (the person) from his message. I mean, to give an example, people often exercise an ability to selectively hold their noses when voting for a given politician; so this concept of respecting the message, if not precisely the man, isn't exactly a foreign idea to us. Incidentally, I have yet to meet anyone from whom I could not learn anything.


> As for his points, there are seeds of truth in them that are twisted into lies and logical fallacies, but I can't be bothered to take the whining of a pest like that seriously.
>

To which lies and logical fallacies (plural) are you objecting? I only counted one that is obvious. I should say the majority of the ideas that Mr. Doug Black(*) is citing aren't all his own, but indeed, they were a development upon the editorial "Hezbollah Not on List" which he was already talking about. Too bad Mr. Black is nowhere near as literate as the legitimate L.A. commentators, who now have been slandered by unfortunate association to his post.

Wolfspirit

(*) Presuming that "Doug Black AP English Response" is actually the guy who ticked off Etienne's English Grammar Radar. (Sorry Etienne; it's a little difficult to tell to whom you were referring :-)