So it is that you're crazy.

So, you're saying that that's not brilliant?

No, I thought it was great, but the bunnies were clearly promoting a right-wing agenda.

Linking to these bunnies marks a clear improvement over quoting the Weekly Standard and National Review.

Ah, Tom delurks with the kind of substantive comment I'm starting to expect around here. I can only assume that you are talking about the Iraq and al Qaeda post where I quoted the Weekly Standard, the National Review, the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post.

I can certainly see how two of seven sources ten posts ago would lower the level of discourse around here and make bunnies "a clear improvement". Especially when your comment comes with such a devastating critique of the content of those quotes.

The way I see it, there are three species of posts here:

(1) the outrageous posts that trigger the deterioration of the discourse;

(2) the expressions of outrage that effect the deterioration of the discourse; and — finally —

(3) the expressions of outrage about the deterioration of the discourse.

Not sure what category would absorb this post, but I expect it might be a (1). If so, the paradigm replicates itself, but with an interesting twist: this time Rich gets to do the (2), and I get to try my hand at (3).

I would prefer it if there were also some more:

(0) substantive critiques of positions taken, assertions made, facts cited, opinions stated, and explanations proposed

I appreciate your comments like the first one to this post. I actually would love for someone to say, "I read your post and you're wrong because...." Or, "but did you think of this?" I'm not asking for objectivity – that's clearly impossible and I'm not claiming it for myself – but how about reasoned discussion instead of venom? A response instead of a jab?

I obviously don't have enough patience for complaints about weak evidence that demonstrate that the complainer didn't read the post, or for refusals to discuss arguments because I drew on hated sources.

And damn it, how come all my cheesecakes and bunnies have to end up imperialist cheesecakes and fascist bunnies?!?

So, I'm not sure what this does for your cycle, Brad. But whatever....

Rich, I’ve categorized my recent comments – I can only write for myself after all – for your benefit. Yes, almost all of them also fall under the category: (2) the expressions of outrage that effect the deterioration of the discourse

I would prefer it if there were also some more:

(0) substantive critiques of positions taken (Comments: Liberal media? –and I still haven’t received an answer from you; Virginia is for Haters; Regulation by purse strings, Caught him! Via Brad A.), assertions made (Comments: Liberal media?; Virginia is for Haters,), facts cited (Comments: Liberal media?), opinions stated (Comments: Good news, Al Qaeda & Spain), and explanations proposed (Comments: Taiwan Election)

Mike – Yes, well I definitely owe you one on the liberal media. I just haven't had time to put my thoughts together – I have what I think is a considered, nuanced view of it that is not of the Slander! variety, and I want to get it right.

As for the others, I didn't mean to imply that there were no good comments – I guess I just want the signal/noise ratio (or in our terminology, the (0)/(2) ratio) to be higher.

Oh, and lest you feel discouraged, just because I don't refute, embrace or otherwise respond to a comment, doesn't mean it doesn't effect my thinking. I like to think that this is true of my posts, as well.

On a lighter note - More Bunnies!!!!

I think this one is pretty good

Alien