> When someone has enough bad ideas, and they're all bad in similar or
> identical ways, debating each one independently as it arises becomes a
> progressively sillier exercise in futility. (Which is not to say that shag
> fits this category, but the much-maligned *ad hominem* certainly has its
> merits in general.)
It's not my intention to employ that here. My point is that for all the poor sphincter control, she's wound up saying in the post I quoted, knock yourselves out, tell me what to do. (Unless it's sarcasm.) But then I've never figured out what her beef was, since she she's been perfectly happy to engage in the sort of thought experiments that don't appear fundamentally in opposition to what Doug and SA seem to have in mind. That is, in between rounds of heaping insults on them, me and the odd passerby. So there's this long pattern of flaming people over nothing, aside from the actual disagreements around OWS that are apparently much ado about shut your bourgeois pie-hole.
I asked myself where in meatspace would anybody encounter, much less put up with, such a reliable verbal shitspray. SO's you put up with for far too long and insane bosses come to mind. You can learn things from them too, even intentionally. I have to have to confess my own failing in sometimes finding it funny, until I became a regular target. Of course, it's not such a big deal over email, being just words, and our being purely rational critters, free of social baggage and inherently able to filter out irrelevancies.
-- Andy