My reply to @AB

@AB thank you for your comment.
‘Just because you religiously reference old FT articles like you’re writing a Family Guy episode doesn’t make you sophisticated.’ Yes, I do reference old FT articles. Religiously, no! The reason is obvious, I am a regular reader of this newspaper, and those references were germane to the issue. Then, the Family Guy non sequitur- you put the spurs to your rhetorical mount and were immediately thrown from the saddle. In sum, your argument descends in to a collection of personal insults, not to speak of public shaming, two of the hallmarks of the anti-intellectual, the Know-Nothing. For this kind of polemic you have a gift, yet it is no substitute for actual argument. Even though it has a limited appeal, it would have been more effective had you been able to infuse your screed with humor. Or, was that what the Family Guy reference was meant to accomplish? If so it fell with a thud!








About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.