mnottertail
Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 snark doesn't really erase the intellectual integrity argument of that you really still need to address the content. Bless your heart. I made substantive points in post 173, and the response was a strawman attempt at mind-reading. Not wasting any more time/energy on that. As for not living up to the "intellectual integrity" of Newsmax and its fans, well, that's a cross I'll just have to bear. yes but your comments had nothing "substantive" to do with the actual material IN the article. you generally denigrated the source, the author and the judge in question without giving an actual critique. that's what im referring to when I say the "intellectual integrity argument"---dealing with the content. and I suspect that's why phydeaux, and myself as I was reading what you had written, were looking for. One does not need an actual critique, any apologist can come up here and say any horseshit they want, doesn't make it factual, topical, or worthy of honest consideration.
_____________________________
Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30
|