Whose Rules?

I remember reading the beginning of this article back in the first few weeks. Just from reading Lazere's actual ground rules, I thought that by the time any writer following those rules got to his point, a reader would have seen so many conflicting arguments that he would have no clue where the author stood.

See? Even that last sentence I just wrote was a little hard to follow. Sure enough, as I read through Lazere's article, I had no clue what his point was. Actually, that's not true. I did gather that he thought Lynne Cheney indulged in "invective."

Wow, people on opposite sides of the political spectrum using "abusive language"? Who would have thought? And does Lazere make his argument any more valid by using phrases such as "hyperbolic overgeneralizations" and "manichean oversimplifications." My, what a fine example of redundant repetition.

After Lazere spends 20 pages hiding behind big words and references to references and assuring us that he isn't attacking everyone (only those who don't agree with him), he finally gets to what I believe might be his point on the pentultimate (I can use big words, too.) page of the article, not counting his sources.

In typical Batman-Voice-Over fashion, he asks a serious of suspense building questions regarding whether the Olinites will "take the pledge to abide by...my ground rules for polemecists." And then Robin Hood called "conscientious conservatives" to join together to raise the level of ethics in their field that argues about argument and never comes up with solutions to real issues.