randomWalks

You know, as a reader of said "warblogs", I'm very open to the idea of a counter-blog to keep things in check. What I've growing tired of, however, are the ad homimen slingings. I'm all for fact-checking. I don't care for name-calling. I don't care to read right-political blogs that resort to intellectual dishonesty, and I'm certainly not going to give credence to left-political intellectual dishonesty, and in my view the warblogger watch site seems to employ too much of the name-calling tactic.

Ad hominem, even.

Funny, when Lileks says Warblog Watchers suck the toes of Chomsky, who has leprosy, and goes on to say the only bullets they will get during in war is in their back when they run away--and this isn't ad hominem? But you challenge them on it cowboy style, even Mocking their cowboy style--and YOU are accused of hubris.

Adam, you are right about the middle column being too wide, we will fix that. And Adam, the WBW is ready for you, whenever you want to join!

dr. menlo

Good lord. Where in my statement did I say "Adam is a name-caller" or something to that effect? Read for content. My remarks were directed more toward the warblogger watch site itself, but note that I also mention both sides being known to appeal only to personal beliefs rather than intellectual discourse. It's the name-calling and cheerleading that need to be reigned in for the blogosphere to be a legimiate challenge to mainstream media.

Sorry to keep commenting, but I thought I'd point out a few examples of sites (granted, right-leaning sites, but I'm not here to coerce you to the dark side, just to illustrate a point) that I think do what they do very well, and as a result, I read them almost daily:

Eve Tushnet

Megan McArdle

Eugene Volokh, et al.

Each features genuine and educated thoughtfulness, rather than relying on political grandstanding.

No need to apologize.