Gee, I hope not.
Maybe we should set up a grading system for responses.
I'm sure someone can come up with a better scale, but here's a start:
A - intelligent, informative, well-spoken without cliches and insults, an opposing view that provides valuable insight
B - intelligent, informed, means well, but uses cliches, inability to express oneself, not as badly as W, but not well.
C - uninformed, gets ideas from protected bunker of talk-radio or self-congratulatory thread of cohorts, insulated from the world, like W, often supported by spouse, parents, or taxpayers.
D - cliches, personal insults, difficulty in thinking. Trivializes human life, but still needs the comfort of groupthink others of his ilk. Often a military wanna-be of the unsuccessful sort who has never been in harm's way but gung-ho to send others. Blames own lack of success on others. Claims if someone doesn't like X (Bush for example) they must love Y (Clinton for example), and can't understand an alternative Z
F - 12 year-old male, wishes he had testosterone but doesn't, wants to be like the grown-ups but can't understand their discussions so runs around like my cocker spaniel puppy crapping on threads everywhere. |
