MS writes: it’s interesting to note that you choose to post to the easily attacked, hastily composed, ill considered kind of responses on your blog, but not to ones which are “good rejoinders” which ‘merit a response”…. But why waste bandwidth on “ill considered rants” and ignore a well-considered rebuttal? Afraid your readers might see the chinks in your armour?
No, not at all. I am absolutely sure that there are chinks in the armor, such as it is. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen more than a handful of “good rejoinders”. The vast majority consist of:
1) Some variant of the “I know you are but what am I” response.
2) Wild and hysterical name-calling. Consider that I’ve been e-assaulted by feminists, abortionettes, gays and the Council on American Islamic Relations. You can’t possibly think this will bother me in the slightest, can you? I haven’t even heard any creative insults. Very disappointing, especially from the self-appointed rational elite.
3) Assertions with no support.
4) An obvious failure to grasp the major points. Alternatively, a failure to address any of them.
5) A shocking degree of historical ignorance.
In fact, I’ve received more that have hit the quinfecta – assuming that’s a word – than merit any response. But I will certainly respond to two or three of the more thoughtful rejoinders once the flood ceases and I can select from the best of the lot. The easy ones demand no effort in responding, hence the speedy posts, but don’t think those were the bottom of the barrel. If I truly wanted to slag the godless, I’d post a few of the more gutteral rejoinders I’ve received from the incompletely evolved.