No it's not, but it's what Michael does best. I addition to doing this kind of thing, he is also forever arguing on behalf of democracy and free speech. It has always struck me that his ends and means are very much at odds with one another.
I have gotten used to the fact that any time someone wants to engage him in a dialogue, Michael deluges said person with an interminable bibliography. "What's the subtext?" I sometimes wonder, are we supposed to go read all this stuff before we ever talk to Michael? But the main effect of his "replies" is that of being bludgeoned with words/references. It makes me less than friendly and less than sympathetic.
Joanna