Note how steadfastly CSBadeaux refuses to read the review strayling mentions.
strayling 2 hours ago
This review of your review says it far better than I could.CSBadeaux 2 hours ago in reply to strayling
Goodness, a C-List Lefty blogger who can't carry his? her? its? own water. Wow. Never saw one of those before.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention!strayling 2 hours ago in reply to CSBadeaux
You're welcome. I take it from your lack of specific criticism that although you dislike the person who wrote the review you can find nothing in it with which to disagree.CSBadeaux 1 hour ago in reply to strayling
You take incorrectly, which really shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with practitioners of commenting-by-drive-by-pooping.
Rather, I was noting that your drive-by consisted of giving us the (facially inarticulate) ramblings of someone either obsessive enough or desperate enough for hits (and a graduation to the B-List!) to write what appeared to be a screed that probably had something to do with Leon's piece (though what, I confess to not knowing), despite the incredibly low likelihood that anyone would read that ramble, care, or link to it.
(I confess to not knowing because I skimmed across it, dipping oh-so-lightly into its fetid waters, occasionally grazing across thoughts on "anchor babies" and other matters neither really touched on by Leon nor indeed, from what I can see, Ms. McCain.)
I could doubtless find things with which to disagree, but as a rule, I don't spend time pretending that people who don't matter, do; and actually pulling out my Rosetta Stone, translating the Middle Gibberish in which that was written, then reading what he/she/it wrote, let alone formulating a response, would not only violate that rule, but would also encourage the poor dear in his/her/its insanity. Basic Christian charity compels me not to render a mental illness worse.
Hope that clarifies things.strayling 1 hour ago in reply to CSBadeaux
I gave you a "like" vote for the wonderful phrase "facially inarticulate" and for taking the time to write all that out. I do, however, encourage you to be more precise in your use of language in order to avoid the ambiguity in your original response which led to this exchange.
I am a little disappointed that you failed to provide any pertinent criticism of the (excellent, in my opinion) meta-review which I linked to, but then life's full of these small irritations and we mustn't let them get us down.CSBadeaux 1 hour ago in reply to strayling
I confess to presuming too often that sarcasm, even if in context, will slip the surly bonds of pixel and touch the face of God.
As for your second paragraph: Indeed, as a friend of mine likes to say, ours is a vale of tears; or if you prefer, life is pain, princess. Were this person or persons someone whose opinion not only matters, but could be and was written coherently and interestingly, I might be moved to care. As you can't be bothered to peel out those "excellent" criticisms and share them here (I'm particularly intrigued about the "anchor baby" thing, as I still can't find it in Leon's piece -- and a quick Google search would show that he's on record as opposed to changing the prevailing interpretation of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment -- and incoherent Lefty screeds definitionally believe that all Republicans are in favor of that), I have to conclude that, lamentably, you either lack the strength of the C-List Lefty blogger's convictions, or you, too, don't care, and are simply trolling.
Regardless of the truth, which is indeed doubtless out there, I am still unmoved to care.strayling 29 minutes ago in reply to CSBadeaux
That was a fun little conversation, thanks. I do wish you'd read that review a bit more seriously because it does cut this one down to size rather well, and gives some useful insight into the unstated reasons why Mr. Wolf is so hostile to the book. I promise you I'm not trolling, but I'll admit to enjoying the spectacle of conservatives fighting amongst themselves. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.CSBadeaux 21 minutes ago in reply to strayling
Sorry. As I said, I'm not fluent in Middle Gibberish; the "review" appears to purport to associate Mr. Wolf with a view to which a very quick Google search would give the lie, and which at any rate appears to have nothing to do with this review; and as you can't be bothered to do more than glowingly approve of it in the most general possible terms, I'll have to spare this person as he or she or they begin the long march to almost being cited and read by influential, or indeed, more than a few people. That you suggest the writer to whom you link either knows Mr. Wolf personally, or can read minds at a distance; and yet you still don't find the arguments worthy of regurgitation, is frankly a consistent surprise to me.
Well, not really. That was sarcasm again. I know drive-by commenting idiom.
In the context of Leon Wolf making fun of Meghan McCain, by both subjects' explicit statements, there is only one conservative. Your joy therefore does not make you a bad person, but it does make you, at best, an incorrect one, and at worst, a thick as a pile of bricks. I suspect it's the former, but you're welcome to prove it's the latter.Poor CSBadeaux. His writin' sure is fancy, but his critical thinking skills bleaux.