Is stupidity just a knee jerk reaction with shooter,

Yes and no. His knee-jerk reaction is always to be contrary to whatever's posted. He looks the dumbest when being contrary crosses the lines of standard partisan hackery, forcing him to go after liberals in general when Democrats are being taken to task that day.

Generally the pattern is that he posts what he thinks are provocative questions that are unanswered or unaddressed by Glenn's line of inquiry (but they almost always have already been addressed, or too obvious for Glenn to address them).

I forget the specific rhetorical term for the practice, but you see it a lot in creationism/evolution debates from the creationists: You pose questions that the "other side" isn't specifically answering in their argument. These seem on the surface to poke holes in the other side's position by the implication that their argument doesn't account for 100% of everything and must therefore be wrong. Has the double-whammy of when the other side doesn't address these often bankrupt questions, it makes it look like the questioner must have been right.

And this tactic is infinite and evergreen--there are always questions to be posed. When you prove A and prove C by way of B, the shooters of the world try to direct attention to B which you supposedly didn't address. On and on and on and on.

So, yeah. Every day for shooter, and every day the same thing, every day the same pattern. The questions, maybe a single follow up post, and after getting the snot beat out of him responsewise, he's gone only to be back the next day with the same shit all over again. It's not about dialogue, it's just classic attention-whoring, aka trolling. And it's working, because every day he gets that attention.

Yes, if he weren't granted the attention he'd go away, but ain't nobody going to do that as consistently as it would take. First, it's too much fun in that guilty-pleasure, cheat-code, shoot-the-242-in-the-barrel kind of a way. And second, there will always be new posters who haven't figured out his schtick yet and respond.

Think of him as the blog's comic relief, a little free fun with the anger or despair that you more generally get from considering the issues that Glenn raises. He also illustrates pretty neatly what most of us are fighting against in terms of parroted talking points and willful ignorance.

Despite the entertainment value, him, Tiberius, Nasal Babble Fucker (sorry, but that's always how I read his screen name) and Elephantman are going to be the first on my ignore list if ever Salon implements such a feature. I'd keep them if they ever said anything or raised any actual issues that were worthwhile. To date, zippo, though.

Keep it up, Glenn. Wow. Thanks.

I see what you're saying about the low-end stuff, and I myself have made comments similar to yours on one of Glenn's columns with the results you describe.

I myself am not posting to blow your head off. As I read this, yeah OK, the dirty details are in fact dirty. But on principle I don't see it as any different than if Craig had made large portions of his political careering on a platform against, say, diet soda. The story is that when he was caught drinking diet soda and there was possible risk to his seat on the Senate, the RW apologists come out of the woodwork. Now that he's been caught drinking diet soda again but is expendable, the RW apologists are going to expend him.

I don't think that the actual lurid specifics are the real story here, and I didn't read Glenn's column as playing to that luridity at all (your mileage will vary). The story Glenn's pursuing in this column is totally in line with the rest of his overarching theme. And this one's well documented and presented.

It's the freaking outrageous hypocrisy, as ever.