It occurs to me that one can identify some basic archetypes (if that isn’t a redundancy) of posters on TH and, to a minute degree, in responders to my one blog where I forgot to disable comments.

[For those of you who have missed it, the reason I disable comments is not because I want to take the position (and in my experience many "professional" pundits do want to occupy the position) of being able to spit without being spat upon. Rather, it is out of respect for you guys. Note how long it was between my blogs! I, being an undisciplined sort, must restrict my blogging and TH posting to a very narrow time commitment. Otherwise I’d spend way too much time talking to you guys. You are interesting and I like doing it. But I just can’t afford the time. So rather than have you guys comment and feel ignored, I disable comments. I figure you can always catch up with me on the TH street, call me out, and throw down on me then. I’m almost always on the Coulter thread Wednesday nights and Thursday days. You want a show down then, feel free.]

Tinslider’s comment, though, has got me reflecting on the genres of TH posters. Tinslider represents what I call the Lilly Gloved Prune Faced Old Maid Aunt School of Political Rhetoric. The Lace Doily School, for short. The poster boy here is Mort Con-drak-he, and the Guiding Principle is "Civility Uber Alles". You are practically guaranteed to hit one or a couple on any TH thread. They claim to have some kind of relation to the GOP or Conservatism, but, once scratched, shriek like the Moronic Mythical Middle "Moderates" crawling toward Socialism (in Buckley’s model) that they probably really are.

These people, like Tinslider, reject all I or Ann or many of you have to say simply because they don’t like the Style and Tone of our Rhetoric. I don’t want to get the women stirred up at me here, and I’m sure it works both ways with men equally at fault, but, guys, have you had my experience, and the experience of other men I have talked to, that you can make a perfectly innocent and factual statement to your wife, void, as near as your forebrain thinking is concerned, of emotional loading, and have her react vociferously, not to what you have said, which she may even acknowledge to be true, but to the way she perceived you said it?

Thus the Tinsliders of the world react. Were they all raised by Aunt Prunella with Ms. Manner’s Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior in lieu of Holy Scripture?

Now let me admit that my Philosophy of Rhetoric is, in large manner, shaped by C..S. Lewis. And it is a fact Lewis points out, in The Screwtape Letters that all of us, male and female, are quite capable of saying the most offensive things in a way that the bare text would seem innocent, but the delivery makes in a blow to the face. I will not deny having committed that sin. Further, Lewis speaks of Courteous Words or Hard Blows being the Language of the Knightly or Noble Warrior in The Chronicles of Narnia (The Horse and His Boy). So, in a vacuum, Tinslider’s principle has merit. It’s the way his ilk apply it that fails my cogency test.

First of all let me say that it must be considered that Tinslider & Coffeeklatch only say, or in charity, only think, their problem is with my rhetoric. To my mind, it is a better than even chance it was either the TARGET of my wit, be it person or principle, or the bitter truth of the bon mot that cheesed Tinman and posse off. In Tinny’s case, he’s an acolyte in the Military Order of the Church of St. McAin’t. For whatever reason these, supposedly, military types (serving, ex, or family) can’t see past Mac the Knife’s last century hero status as a POW.  One wonders what history they have read if they don’t know Heroes can turn Traitor. Does the term Benedict Arnold, decorated war hero, mean anything to them? Is this a kind of "Nam Vets against the World" sub-culture? I recommend to you the little known Tracy/Hepburn film,  Keeper of the Flame or even Seven Days in May.

[WARNING WILL ROBINSON! If you view those films, beware the Commiewood Marxist ju-jitsu. The protagonists stand valiantly in the gap to foil Fascist Coups by the Last War’s heroes.  (Don’t forget the original  Manchurian Candidate was a POW programmed by Chicoms–what does that little setting shift in the recent remake say to you?). We now know, of course, beyond dispute or denial, from their own people/documents, that it always was/is the Commies who are the threat. (Don’t forget, too, that no less a light then historian Tom Wolfe in the Millennium Edition of Time, or maybe Newsweek, pointed out that Hitler and Stalin were Fraternal Socialist Twins!) Here you might want to read my treatment of McCarthyism in the newest Indiana Jones movie.]

The Tinsels of the world seem oblivious to the possibility of the Hero/Traitor in defense of St. McAin’t.

Which makes em, to my mind, a kind of intellectual white trash, i.e. buttkissers extraordinaire, or perhaps buttworshippers would be more accurate. You know, the kind of NASCAR Fan (and I am a NASCAR Fan) who cheered Dale Burnfart Senior, may he rot not in peace, because he was "The Intimidator" completely ignoring his ruthless cheating and murderous driving.  Hero worshipers of false Idols. Those who lick the boots of those who despise them while accepting their fawning. Among commiequeers they become Ted Kennedy lovers. Loyal serfs who live to serve the Elitist Aristos. Political Uncle Toms.

Whatever they say about "childish name calling" what is really being shouted in what they use for brains is "How DARE you say that about your betters!"

But be this as it, most likely, may, I’m going to show Tinslider more consideration then the dis-cogency of his gripe deserves and issue a point by point Philosophy of Political Rhetoric in rebuttal.

Mick