"The writer of the article does not understand it. The writer quoted by him does. The former makes a really dumb remark after the quote "Note the 'sics'. The message here is only those who are idiots could possibility think this way." That is NOT what the "sics" mean."
You're right. This part of the article is just plain dumb because it shows either that the author is twisting passages to suit his agenda or he just doesn't understand why the "sics" were used the way they were.
It's unreasonable enough to expect that liberal "journalists" be educated in English. You want them to understand Latin usages as well?
"This part of the article is just plain dumb because it shows either that the author is twisting passages to suit his agenda or he just doesn't understand why the "sics" were used the way they were." I say it is the latter.
Let's look at this from the newspaper writers' side. It's certainly their option to edit the responses they're commenting on and correct simple spelling/grammatical mistakes. You can't tell me this is never done. The fact that they didn't edit and chose to use the "sic" makes it likely to me that it was their agenda to show the e-mail writers in as poor a light as possible, and it is perfectly legitimate for the author of the article to point this out.