>His stance, and the one you and Reed are taking in support of him, suggests,
>implies or baldly states that there couldn't possibly be an internal
>contradictions to or stylistic flaws in) his work and that we are to take it
>or leave it; it is pure and we're alies of we accept it and enemies if we
>don't.
Have you ever known Doug to take the stance you describe? Why would he start now?
>The nerve he's hit is, is I think at least for me, tied
>to the ways his style, his lack of complexity and his denigration of others
>make it so the people who ought to hear his argument dismiss it out of hand
Unless prick and asshole are meant endearingly when referring to Michaels I think any denigration has been a two-way street. That might have something to do with the tone of Reed's response to you.