Where in Page Rockwell's original article concerning the rape of the Philly prostitute do you find reference to Broadsheet feminists, bitches, or specific reference to Broadsheet's blogroll as a topic of discussion. I do not find it there. It is the Anonymous who keeps bringing it up who is off-topic. I persistently told him to stick to the topic. My every post to him in this thread has been about the Philly rape and the Philly rape only. He has evaded my questions and I have every right to try to pin him down.

That's because he wasn't talking about the Philly rape! Jesus! You're trying to start an argument about something he wasn't even talking about in the first place. Either feed the troll or don't, but for you to complain that a troll isn't playing by your rules is more than a little silly.

He is a consistent troll and brings other blogs and criticism of Broadsheet as a blog into every conversation. I see no point in cooperating with his agenda. How you can criticise me for trying to force him to my agenda (the Philly rape), which is at least on topic and yet give him a pass is beyond me.

I'm not giving him a pass, I'm saying that you've set up a straw-man.

What does Broadsheet's blogroll have to do with the Philly rape? I don't give a damn if he was using hyperbole. Let him defend his own statements.

You should give a damn if he was using hyperbole, because your failure to recognize it makes you look ridiculous.

Hyperbole is an especially stupid form of argument in any case.

I'm just going to let that one stand on its own. That's just exquisite.

If you are not aware of his pattern of trying to ruin discussions on Broadsheet then I am sorry for attacking you due to your ignorance. If you are aware and you defend his tactics, then perhaps we should consider that you may be more like him than you care to admit.

I usually ignore the trolls, but I generally consider myself intelligent enough to understand what they're saying, even if I don't agree with it.

Now one thing becomes clear to me. You disdain everyone who doesn't have a college education.

That would be straw-man number two. If you care to re-read what I actually said, I was making a point about your perceived age, not (necessarily) your education level. I don't disdain everyone who doesn't have a college education. The ability to think critically is not unique to people with college degrees, however it is more likely to be found in people *old enough* to have gone to college. Your argumentative style reminds me of me when I was in 12th grade.

Is having a college education a requirement for reading Salon? Is having gotten good grades in college English a requirement for having your opinion fairly considered? What a nice little elitist you are!

No, but being able to successfully identify the meaning of a post before arguing against it is definitely a requirement for having your opinion fairly considered. If you are incapable of distilling meaning from context, then you can hardly expect people to take you seriously.

My apologies for being a working class smuck.

No apology necessary, I was working-class too. It didn't stop me from learning how to think.

Is the above what you mean by hyperbole Kitchen Girl? I sure hope you give me a pass on it. It is okay to use hyperbole in argument, right Kitchen Girlie?

The above was indeed what I meant by hyperbole. Unfortunately, it's ineffective because it doesn't actually hold a mirror up to what I was saying, which was actually that Anonymous Shrill was extremely young, or at least was making the types of arguments that very young people tend to make.

For the record, I do put a premium on tertiary-level education (and above). That is not to say that all people who go to college are beacons of intelligence, or that all people who don't are knuckle-draggers (indeed, one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and intellectually honest people I know dropped out of college to join the Army instead). However, I believe that you are more likely to find close reading and critical-thinking skills among college graduates than among people who stopped after high school.

Strange that you weren't part of the discussion on the raped prostitute yet you decided to chew on me over my attempt to discuss it with the Disgusting Anonymous.

Why is that strange?

You have characterized me as young, stupid, uneducated, shrill, and on and on, all in the service of a troll.

No, just in service of an intellectually-honest argument. You keep poking the troll with a stick, then proceed get all bent out of shape because he's telling you that you're poking him with a stick. If you're going to start an argument with a troll, at least have the wherewithal to argue against the point he's actually making, rather than cut one from whole cloth.

Maybe you should Ben Dover for him. He'd like that.

Classy.