LOL. You mean, "I write for people who are going to uncritically swallow whatever I shove in front of them". Sorry, my man - that just ain't me. Have fun with your little choir, though. As for whose argument carries the day, I'll leave it to history to decide.
general_re,
Now that you are dispensing with invectives I don't mind saying hello. I wish
though that you would not find it necessary to presume upon my motives. I neither
practice uncritical swallowing, nor find it attractive in others. Being capably
opposed refines one's grasp. There is a difference, however, between genuine
skepsis and unabashed prejudice. Your manner of speech does occasionally betray
shades of the latter.
As far as the idea of a contest is concerned, may your argument carry the day.
My interest is not in the art of rhetoric, although I hold my own on subjects I
cherish. Here I only wish to correct misinformation about a case I researched
extensively.
As for history, we could probably engage in another long and likely fruitless
discussion. What survives is usually the version sanctioned by the dominant side.
Applied to the judicial travesty known as Terri's case, it is possible that the
final tale will wind up being close to the one you seem to favor. Still, one has
to honor the conviction in one's heart and not be overly concerned with gaining
or losing popularity in the process.
Warm regards,
TS