[Superman]

I think both these matching threads are fairly amusing. And I have a suggestion. And comment, of course. Some of you are using sarcasm. Most of you know, or will discover, that since Internet communication contains no voice inflection or facial expressions, sarcasm is much more difficult to identify. Using it will often confuse your audience (particularly dimwitted liberals like myself), regardless of the topic or audience.

Sarcasm, when you can pull it off, can underscore your argument. I think that's what tempts us to use it. It adds a little power to the message. Sort of like Nitrous. In the paragraph above, I'm suggesting you keep your messages clear, rather than use Nitrous, because non-sarcastic posts are more clear. In this paragraph I'd like to point out that a good idea needs no sarcasm. The power of your argument should be right there on its face.

And finally, I notice that we liberals are accused of sidestepping the issues, and focusing on personal attacks. I think some folks have said that liberal talk show hosts do this. Ahem. First, I'd like to know of a liberal talk show. I don't believe there are many, and none in my (fairly liberal) area. There are a few conservative ones, but none liberal. In my observation, the opposite is true. In my experience, the name-calling is done by the Limbaughs of the world (and others of his ilk), and the more serious fact-laden discussions involve liberal commentators. American voters like their radio shows like their food - quick and cheap. "Liberal" talk shows are uncommon because they would be boring discussions of facts. Anyway, I just wanted to make that comment. I can tell you I was dumbfounded when I first started seeing my conservative fellow-Pelicanheads accuse liberals of name-calling and unwillingness to focus on facts instead of soundbites. Truly dumbfounded. Because clearly, clearly, conservative radio talk shows are festivals of soundbites and name-calling. In my humble view.