I am tired, so it is now up to you to document teh stupid (which will, no doubt, come from someone who thought of himself as anti-idiotarian just a short while back. Time flies when you are a moron.).
*** Update ***
I thought I was done, but idiocy is on the march. At the Bookworm blog, this update after ranting that Greenwald was somehow deceiving people by publishing not only the portions of the email he wanted to address, but the entire email:
I seem to have gotten linked at Salon, and I’ve had a few people take issue with the fact that Greenwald included a link to the original letter at another website. I don’t care.
The bone I’m picking is with the fact that he created a straw man against which to argue when he selectively edited the original letter and used that selectively edited text as his target. Once Greenwald did that, he created a strong disincentive for readers to trot over to the link and read the whole thing. His readers trust that Greenwald, in his redaction, nevertheless preserved the original text’s meaning — which he did not.
So my beef is with a stylistic approach to argument, not with the argument itself. There are three reasons that lead people to edit their opponent’s statements to suit their own argument, rather than arguing against what their opponent said in the first place: carelessness (my most common sin), intellectual puniness (and I won’t accuse Greenwald of that), or an agenda (which Greenwald openly displays and which Media Matters displayed when it went after Rush).
So, Greenwald had an agenda, and he pursued it. That’s fine, but he used a smarmy lawyer’s tactic to do it, and that’s not fine. He deserves to be called on that tactic.
Why not just stick your fingers in your ear (wash them first, it might get messy after having your thumb so far up your ass), and chant “LALALALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING LALALALALA” like other 8 year olds? I will let one of their commenters explain things:
Reducing a longer text to simply quote the passages relevant to one’s argument is called: writing. Indicating that orginal text has been removed is done by the use of ellpses (plural for ellipsis). High school english, here, sparky. Glen’s post was 1) open and honest 2) well sourced 3) persuasive. The fact that no one claims ownership of the original letter should be an indication to you how unprofessional and childish the letter is to most every reader who has had high school English.
Nevertheless, you lie about Greewald hiding the original, then proudly admit you “don’t care” you lied, and then continue to misinterpret Greenwald’s argument. You are maliciously ignorant.
The only defense of that churlish letter is that the ascribed official disowns it and therefore it may not be authentic — as Greenwald is willing to concede.
That much stupid (as evidenced in the original post by the Bookworm), does not come innocently or naturally. It takes work being that dumb. No doubt I will be savagely attacked for not reprinting the entire post.
Clearly we are reaching the end times when the right-wing is asserting that punctuation and hyperlinks have a left-wing bias.