Rule #1 - don't undercut your own argument

By Aussiegirl

The author makes some good points about ad hominem attacks and saying things you may regret in the heat of battle. He seems to advise restraint and comity in the pursuit of civilized discussion. He then immediately undercuts his own argument by engaging in what he no doubt sees as exceedingly clever cheapshots riduculing and demeaning George Will, to wit:

"This, however, begins to tip out of the zone of fair comment and into pompous ass territory:"

"Will is just a short step away from patrolling Pennsylvania Avenue with a sandwich board that reads “The End is Nigh.” Loosen the bow tie and get a grip George."

It would seem to make sense not to contradict your own thesis in the body of your article.

The American Thinker: "In every quarrel among friends there is a risk that people will do grave damage by saying things they don't mean and wouldn't say but for their competitive desire to win the argument. Poorly chosen words can drive wedges between allies and defeat understanding. The firestorm over Harriet Miers has already raised a disturbing crop of poorly chosen words.