Look, I don't find MM to be that funny, but I have never 'bashed' him over it. In fact, I don't think I've ever mentioned to anyone before that I'm not all that entertained by him.
What I *have* 'bashed' him over, is his playing fast and loose with the facts and his reluctance to have a fact checker read his stuff before it goes into print. And it's not just him, I'm hard on people whose intellect i have a lot more respect for as well (hi dan lazare!). I think when you are going against the grain you better have *all* of your facts straight no matter how insignificant you may think they are, because if your editors don't find them first, the jackals will for sure, and they will use it to discredit your whole position. If Doug's lasr
I saw MM on C-SPAN not long ago and someone asked him a question (I don't remember exactly the question) and contained in his answer was the assertion "the whole book was fact checked -- everything in it is accurate". Well, we know that is simply not true, as has been discussed here previously.
I'm not saying that MM's efforts are 'useless' or 'do more harm than good', because I think we can use all the help we can get. I'm just saying it would be better if he were both entertaining *and* factually correct.
(And yes, I know Rush Limbaugh labors under no such burden -- please see my point about going against the grain.)
-- no Onan
"superior sound quality"