It’s unfortunate that you’re more concerned about the pedigree of the author than what he says.

But by all means, keep the focus on the process and ignore the information. That’s what Lakoff is telling you to do.

And if you want to start clamping down on subject matter, go ahead and do that too. It’s your board.

Speaking through somebody else’s words is a dubious tactic at best. It has lots of problems, starting with WTF should I care about the opinion of some random rightwing blogger named “Zombie” at a site originally named “Pajamas” but now calls itself “PJMedia” and hopes nobody notices?

But that’s only the start. In a more serious vein, the tactic muddles communication. News flash: you’re not being clearer speaking through somebody else. Unless you preface your link with some calibration like “I’m Tom B and I 100% stand by the opinions at the other end of this link”. Otherwise, we’re left to guess what percentage of the other guy’s opinion you share…which then opens up the ugly possibility of the dread Deniability. Easy to backpedal away from somebody else’s words. Why would I willingly enter an obvious minefield? And for what gain? If I prevail (hypothetically, take a pill), I haven’t prevailed over you, I’ve merely rebutted some random rightwing zombie. Which I could’ve done over on his blog. Why waste my time here?

Just looking for a little accountability and transparency here, TB. I wasn’t avoiding your point, I found myself wondering what was your point and what was zombie’s (and whether there’s really any qualitative difference) and picking apart what’s wrong with this tactic.

Actually, I’ll let you in on a related notion I’ve been considering: Closing Flame to new posts, and using it strictly for its original purpose, as the destination where moderators move flaming threads from other boards. I’m liking the idea better right now, because I think it’ll discourage these gratuitous attempts to pick meaningless fights. We’ll be left with meaningful fights, which I’d relish.

We’re doing this backward when we pick topics to deliberately provoke a flame.

Quite obvious, unless Lakoff has a habit of referring to himself in the third person like Tarzan.

I went over my own analysis of Lakoff’s ideas in February. Some of my observations back then are the same ones this writer makes.

This review just underlines them, tacks on some more, and then adds plenty of evidence that Lakoff is just another rabidly partisan leftist hack wearing the mask of scientific objectivity.

“If you ever have an opinion of your own…”

Yeah, I guess my opinions are pretty rare around here. If you want to see real novelty, try a liberal actually addressing or refuting a point made in a post or article.

Ironically, you delivered a pretty nice example of what that quote was talking about.

Par for the course.

If you ever have an opinion of your own, would you identify it as such in the subject line, Tom? I wouldn’t want to miss something so novel.