[WS:] He has always been a laughing stock to me, but inasmuch as turning him into such stock is successful, there is some value in it. My concern, though, is that people who like him do so not because of the (dubious) merits of his writings, but because he is telling them what they want to hear. Therefore, attempts to turn him into laughing stock are largely unsuccessful, but they generate publicity for him, which works to his benefit.
Someone on this list (Carrol?) said that most people cannot be persuaded by rational arguments - they believe what they want to believe regardless of the rationality or irrationality of their beliefs. If this is true, then the only way of arguing in such situations is to ridicule the person - a strategy adopted inter alia by Michael Moore. In that light, ridiculing Friedman and other mouthpieces of the capitalist establishment seems like having some value.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."