Rabbit logic

One attempts to move on, but they keep pulling one back in.  And honestly, how can anyone not enjoy watching their tiny little rabbit minds so furiously at work?

staranise says:    Asking for “debate” confuses me simply because it presupposes that it would accomplish something different from the current situation, in which any parties concerned have an unlimited personal platform to put forward their ideas and reasoning. It supposes that the parties are unfamiliar with each other’s positions and reasoning. This isn’t true, so there’s not much new to say. Nothing significant would change. Ah. Except, of course, RSHD would get happy pantsfeelings from being paid attention to.  The call for debate is the same as standing outside Scalzi’s house with a boombox over one’s head. It’s not going to work! Turn off the Peter Gabriel. Go home.

John Scalzi says:    Guys, I think we can give the topic of a debate a rest.

MMAH says:    Oh, and look–front page at Salon this morning, too.

Yes, I’ve noticed many things confuse them.  What is particularly funny about this little dialogue is that I never challenged McRapey to a debate.  The challenge came from Ed Trimnell, who happens to be a critic of mine, and it would be Ed, not me, who is metaphorically standing outside in the rain.

But to return to the rabbit logic, apparently I would get “happy pantsfeelings” from Ed’s call being answered and thereby having to spend a modicum of effort to kick around McRapey in front of a few thousand blog readers, but was devastated by the brilliant way in which McRapey and Ensign Wesley banded together in order to draw attention to me in the Guardian, the BBC, and Salon, among others.

It’s rather like watching them try to add 2+2+2 and coming up with the answer “purple badger”.