Why don't you just ignore it? I mean, you don't have to agree with them, and they certainly don't have to agree with you. So I would just ignore them.

Plus, if they're that shouty about little disagreements within the right side of the blogosphere, who cares what they think?

Well, I do ignore it.

But I also think taht it's helpful to point out those that I think are condescending and unreasonable in their criticisms. Especially someone that head nods when you're on the right frequency, yet slaps at you when you dare change the channel.

This isn't so much about my psychological well-being, as it is about making a point regarding polarization and dissent. I'm here to tell you, in this modern political climate, dissent doesn't get a whole lot more polite than mine has been. It certainly exists, but it's not as common as the other end of the spectrum.

And for all of Goldtstein's humorous hyperbole (he was also criticized), he also tends to construct cogent arguments on varying positions. And I say that from the standpoint of someone that disagrees with him on many issues.

Looks like the ol' Sitemeter over at the Triple S ranch is in need of some inflatin'. Links from you and JG?

Don't ever let 'em tell you that you don't give 'em what they want.

To be honest? I think that his criticism was so patronizing that he might not have even intended it that way. But I could be wrong.

It's not like I'm throwing traffic to a perpetual baiter like Oliver Willis.

Didn't you used to do moonbat photo essays? Maybe it's time for a wingnut version.

This is why I don't criticize bloggers for going off-message. Unless the entire point of the blog is to stay on someone else's message, the only message you (Bill) should stay on is yours. The only expectation anyone should have is that you don't descend into unnecessary personal attacks and invective -- which you don't.

Except that you should always agree ... with me, of course.

Well, I do sometimes descend -

1. A few times with oliver, but I think we can all agree that he's special.

2. And I'm perfecty willing to attack someone else's position.

But I draw distinctions between those that I feel are simply fair game (not to mention how I structure my attack) and those that I disagree with yet either respect for their logic and/or restrained presentation. I can criticize you, for example, without fatally undermining mutual respect. And I can criticize others that I respect less without giving a crap.

But the simple fact that I disagree doesn't determine an automatic response of one or the other.

Bill, you've been reading me since I first started blogging. hell, man, you were one of the very first people to blogroll me. You know that I wasn't patronizing you in any way.

My point, though I didn't expand on it as much as I initially thought I would, is that you regularly tee off on evangelical Christians based on the wingnuttiest among them. I actually had to stop reading stuff you were writing at the height of the Terri Schaivo debate because I honestly didn't think you were listening to any reasonable point the other side made. I could certainly be wrong about that, but that was definitely my perception. I've seen this before when you bring up the term "religious right" in exactly the same way the moonbat leftys so - as some monolithic group that's inexorably trampling all our rights and wants us to live in a Jesusland. Simple observation of some of the most aggressive religious bloggers will show you this isn't true.

I think you've overreacted badly on a lot of religious issues and just haven't really listened to what the other side is saying. I wish you would because voices like yours and Jeff Goldstein's would be more than just welcome in finding middle ground on morals and politics - they'd be essential. I worry, though, that reasonable voices like you're are going to end up in the John Cole camp. That'd be a shame. Those feelings kind of flowed over into that post. I did not intend for it to be patronizing and I apologize if it appeared so.

And j.d. - Holy Cow, man. Don't you think that if I wanted link inflation, I'd do it in a better and kinder way?

I call bullshit:

you regularly tee off on evangelical Christians based on the wingnuttiest among them. I actually had to stop reading stuff you were writing at the height of the Terri Schaivo debate because I honestly didn't think you were listening to any reasonable point the other side made.

Like my commentary on the autopsy results?

This doesn't critically undermine many of the ethical arguments on either side of the issue, but it certainly kills much of the over-the-top hyperbole and inaccuracy surrounding her condition.

No reasonable acknowledgement there, huh? Another example from the height of the debate, this stunningly unfair rhetoric. For your research purposes, here is the entire catalogue of my references to Terry schiavo. I challenge any reasonable person to find either inability to acknowledge the other side of the issue or fantastic rhetoric a la "jesusland." It's right there in black-and-white; the transcript of my comments does not lie.

I did criticize the hyperbolists and those that made sweeping statements about "what should be done," specifically criticizing the repercussions of ridiculous pronouncements like "the state should protect all those in PVR from the removal of feeding tubes." You'd like to say that those were fringe elements that uttered such hyperbole, but they weren't. Many were mainstream bloggers and regular commenters!

You are simply mischaracterizing my opinions at the time. My stated position was moderate and nearly indistinguishable from Charles Krauthammer's, and I avoided the hyperbole that characterized much of the debate. I just had a different opinion than you.

I've seen this before when you bring up the term "religious right" in exactly the same way the moonbat leftys so - as some monolithic group that's inexorably trampling all our rights and wants us to live in a Jesusland.

All YOUR characterizations, Jimmie. How do I know? because I specifically avoid the rhetoric like that (a la Cole - UNLESS it's a component of a light joke) because it undermines a serious argument. Goldstein actually makes fun of rhetoric like that! (specifically "Jesusland")

And it remains that - as nuanced as I am - sometimes broad descriptions of groups are required by even the most reasonable pundit for purposes of rational classification. The "religious right" as a political force has many objectives deeply contrary to my political beliefs as a secular conservative. It just is.

Dig up examples of my raving hyperbole or quit while you are behind. You're perceptions are defensive and misdirected.

And this repetitive persecution complex evidenced by many conservatives regarding criticism of religion is tiresome. The fact is, I'm NOT in the John Cole camp, and while I agree with many of his opinions, I specifically avoid the argumentative tactics that he uses, many of which dilute the effectiveness of his arguments among certain segments predisposed to be skeptical of his arguments. Your failure to recognize this pretty much pisses me off.

I'm sorry you're pissed off, Bill.

You invoked the abandonment of Federalism among your complaints in your post here and that's a pretty good example. Several of my posts addressed that issue directly, as did othres who believed very similary to me. I don't recall your even granting that those viewpoints were based on any reasonable thought, even though you disagreed with them. You practically called folks like me hypocrites and chided us for hanging on to absolutes when the very position were taking demonstrated that even the principle of Federalism isn't an absolute one. I don't know that you paid attention to the argument itself.

Maybe you did and I completely missed it. I'm willing to accept it if that's true.

But you, in this post, have accused me of doing something I've never, ever done to a fellow conservative - that is to patronize them. That pisses me off because my blog posts show over the time that I've blogged, that I'm anyhting but patronizing to conservatives with whom I disagree. Sure, I get snarky when there's a snarky post. I tend to respond in kind. But I have no reason to patronize you and it's just not something I've ever done with you. why would you assume that I'm doing it here?

There's a minor instance of what you call "raving hyperbole" - a phrase which I have never used, nor have I accused you of using, which, I assume could be an example in itself - in the comments of this thread where you say you're beset by "life fetishists" when the only person in the thread you were defending yourself from was a guy making some pretty calm, and pretty rational points. You could, and did, disagree with him, but "life fetishist" is a pretty strong term where it clearly wasn't warranted. You may not have been talking about him, but he seemed to be the only one there who was actually engaging you in debate.

Bill, I'm honestly not trying to "put you on message" with my brief comment and I think you give me far more opinion power than I actually have. I think you say some damned important stuff, which is why I read you blog and link to you, and have kept you on my blogroll since the very beginning. I think you misread my intentions here.

I don't recall your even granting that those viewpoints were based on any reasonable thought, even though you disagreed with them.

You're confusing a lack of comprehensive coverage with unfairness. The fact is, I don't typically read your site, and saw very few arguments of merit regarding Federalism on the sites that I was reading at the time. You conflating this with unreasonable discourse of the issue is ridiculous and terribly self-centered. Once again, I simply have a different opinion than you. Face the fact that I may not have read your logic, or actually found similar logic somewhere else to be unpersuasive.

But you, in this post, have accused me of doing something I've never, ever done to a fellow conservative - that is to patronize them.

Again, I'll use the legal "reasonable" standard. Have a reasonable person read the paragraph that I excerpted from your post and decide whether or not I'm not being patronized. "It's sad that ..." Wake up, Jimmie, that's some condescending horseshit right there.

Regarding "life fetishist." I'm not going to read that whole thread (I'm familiar with the tenor of most of them), but I spent two weeks arguing with a cadre of unreasonable people that called me a Nazi, a smattering of reasonable and unreasonable people that agreed with me, a cadre of reasonable people that I disagreed with and a cadre of unreasonable people that made unequivocal statements on the "sanctity of life."

essentially, over and over and over again, I kept posing a hypothetical: "is there any point at which a person is still autonomically alive, but may be considered dead by virtue of having no brain." Specifically, is there any point on a hypothetical continuum where a person should be allowed to die without intervention to save them.

The fact that more than a few people couldn't accept this basic premise as a starting point of agreement, as the heat of the situation caused them to unequivocally default that all people should be maintained by intervention, for all conditions, spurred the accurate and negative label of "life fetishists."

The culture of life was essentially turned into a demogogic issue not rooted in reality by some people, a situation very similar to the tactics of the moonbats on the left. I stand by that chracterization.

I also note that it's probably the only (one of?) example that you can find, that my restraint in the series of arguments that took place on my site was pretty good and that I authored not a single post on the matter that used irredeemably disparaging terms or tone. In fact, most of my posts counseled restraint. And despite that, while I may really put out an effort to be fair, I'm not Mr. Fucking Spock.

And glancing at the relative lack of thoughtful equivocation on your current front page - neither are you. If I selectively wanted to make an argument about you that was contrary to the pattern of your discourse, I could easily find examples to do it. especially if I moved outwards from your posts into one of the tens of thousands of comments that you may have authored during your argumentation on a heated issue. as it is, i stand by the example that you proffer.

Seriously Jimmie, I've lost some respect for you on this. Why? Because if you think that MY punditry was somehow terribly unreasonable during that issue, it calls into question your judgment on a whole host of other issues. Also, you default to I "misread your intentions" and refuse to admit patronizing me, when the tenor of your patronizing text is clear. Of course I don't think that you could ever "get me on message," (or think that you think you could) rather I simply think that you were scornful of the fact that I got off of your message. That my disagreement with you was fundamentally unreasonable and worthy of your scorn. That you like my site, but you clearly hated what I had to say on that issue. And I find much of that unreasonable myself, along with your mischaracterization of my rhetoric as anti-evangelical. I'll leave it at that.

Not to pile on here, Jimmie, but "life fetishists" is descriptive and, while a bit derogatory, it is not anti-Christian, as not all Christians are pro life, and not all of what Bill called "life fetishists" are evangelical Christians (and, in fact, he seems to be aiming this term at a particular kind of rhetorical countenance). Consequently, using it as an example here seems inapposite.

Incidentally, I responded twice to Jimmie on his site, but my second comment has not yet been approved for posting.

In short, I asked him to cite specific instances of my anti-evangelical bent, and pointed out my actual positions on a number of issues.

True, I've been critical of social cons on issues that directly influence free speech (Sensenbrenner's idiotic desire to criminalize broadcast "indecency") or that are particularly egregious examples of public priggishness (I laughed at those who affected outrage at Laura Bush's horse-milking joke, or at the prospect of a Kid Rock playing at the inauguration). But those have nothing to do with evangelical Christianity and everything to do with being militantly free speech.

Um, ordinarily I wouldn't jump into the fray, here, but here goes.

Jimmy, it's obvious that you want Bill to be "on message," otherwise you wouldn't have said "that it’s taken blatant anti-Semitism and insane Nazi comparisons to divert them from evangelical Christians and give them back some sense of perspective." Your point reads that Bill should have been "on message" this whole time, rather than needing such extreme events to lure him away from unfairly bashing the good guys.

And what's with this emphasis on fairness? This is blogging, not the judicial system. And if you don't like where Bill's been, who cares? It feels like you're picking a fight by including that sentence with that link.

If you're so worried about Bill fighting the wrong enemy, why would you turn a post attacking Democrats into a post attacking Bill? It's a silly distraction from what you were trying to say, and now it's provoked this huge argument between the two of you, when presumably your original point (in the sentence that was unnecessary to your larger point) was that now, finally, you would be on the same side.

Thanks for the support in your comment, ninme, but one quibble is that I don't necessarily regard disagreements like this one as huge arguments. Pretty par for the course in blog world and all.

I, for one, am just happy for the hanky alert. Oh, the humanity!

Jimmy is what, 15 or something? You write circles around him with one hand tied behind your back - JG with his pinky (toe). No worries mate.

Prattle on.

I'm going to start insulting people and make them come down on me like a ton of linky bricks.

If you can take the shame, go for it.

Yeah yeah, huge argument, mere quibble. At any rate, when he's cheering you (however clumsily) for being on his side, it's a strange time to provoke a ...quibble. So you get my drift. He should have let it drop when you called him on it.