To: Lane3 who wrote (6036 ) 12/2/2005 4:52:29 PM From: TigerPaw Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542201 This is the money line of the piece: "The problem with making such a hyperbolic claim is that such exaggerations are not meant to be taking seriously. When the person who makes them treats them as if it were a rational claim then it shows that they themselves are not worthy of being taken seriously." I agree, but that is only half the money. The other half was the throwaway example:One way to recognize a willfully stupid person is to examine the role hyperbole plays in their rhetoric. Take, for example, those who, like Pulitzer-nominated author Stephen Pizzo, say that “George Bush is the worst president of the United States of America, ever. Hands down.” Whenever I encounter such people I walk the other way for fear that such stupidity might be contagious. For anyone to make such a claim would require a basic understanding of Presidential history, an objective standard for comparing other Presidents to George W, and an ability to make nuanced judgments. In other words, it requires the very skill set that would generally prevent a person from making such an inane claim in the first place. As I wrote earlier, there is no indication that this paragraph was added as an ironic way to use a hyperbole to illustrate a hyperbole. Instead it is a technique to make an extreme statement, (that those who think Bush is the worst President are stupid) and then slam the door on response by suggesting that any rebuttal is in itself evidence of hyperbolic over-oration. Yes, the article is about hyperbole in the same way that the CSI television show is about crime fighting. That show would never be on your station unless GM could use it to sell cars or Taco Bell to sell lunch. In a very real way that show is about tacos and drive throughs. This article is very much about creating an association in people's minds. Critisism of Bush is to be associated with extreme hyperbole and therefore unworthy of reasoned consideration. Once the linkage is made, a refutation on hyperbole becomes a refutation of Bush critics by association. The real proof is that after the Bush critics are stupid implication is presented it has to be softened just a bit to disguise it's obvious hyperbolic nature. The disclaimer: (I should note that this is not just a failing of left-leaning progressives. Willful stupidity is certainly not a partisan issue; we heard the same sort of claims about Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The only difference is that Bush became President during the Age of the Blogosphere when the effects of echo-chamber ranting became more pronounced.) has to be added to give the impression that such stupidity is common enough (but of course not common to the author's audience). P.S. - I bolded a section of the sentence which reinforces the concept that anyone who would possibly make the statement is too stupid to analyze the statment they made. The author has to consentrate a lot of slamming in one paragraph because it is necessary to switch to the uplifting theme or risk the audience not being in agreement by the end of the piece. It's really professional grade material. TP