dc_dux

To Halx's and Uber's observation about responding line by line, I would suggest it is to highlight a line that is factually incorrect or unsupportable. At least, that is my intent when I reply in such a fashion.

Uber, I would also suggest it is same for ganging up on a "hapless" minonrity voice....again, when that voice is factually incorrect. One example? An often posted argument to the effect that the Dems who voted for the Iraq war had the same pre-war intelligence as Bush. That is just factually incorrect, no matter how often it may be repeated by hapless, but well-meaning supporters of the war. It is not ganging up to correct that misconception every time it appears.

I appreciate Supple Cow's observations as welll. I would only respond that constructive discussion, at least for me, requires more than stating an opinion that you can not back up with facts, as is often the case here. There is very little added to one's knowledge base by simply trading opinions and I personally dont find it very entertaining or enlightening. It is through the supporting information (and links - that should be judged for credibility) that knowledge is shared.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire