I’m a tad biased, but even while consciously putting that aside, it’s hard not to lean your way. Attacking one’s opposition is not nearly as persuasive as presenting the facts.

Meanwhile, Scholars & Rogues needs to think of ways of promoting Dr. Tracey’s piece before serializing it.

However this guy called you a “blowhard”. I don’t even know if you can respond back to that. Its’ one of those “so’s your face” comments that leave you speechless because of their idiotic immature nature. Maybe you can call him a “gayrod”.

As I say in my comment there:

I wish you’d invested as much effort in acquainting yourself with the FACTS of the case as you do in launching personal shots at me. In fact, what I’d love would be if you’d engage the substance of my indictment of your uninformed screed.

The funniest part is that you offer nothing but conspiracy theory and engage in all manner of ad hominem, and then you accuse ME of conspiracy theory and ad hominem. This must be what it’s like arguing with Karl Rove. If pointing out that DNA evidence isn’t conspiracy theory and calling you out for ignoring actual evidence in one spot and pretending there’s evidence where none exists makes me a “fringe blowhard,” then I guess I need to add the term to my business card.

That you additionally invoke Westword is even more entertaining. Once upon a time they were the only credible source of journalism in this town. They were getting it right on Columbine, for instance, while your employer was intentionally – by its own admission, once Salon caught it with its pants down, by the way – lying about the Cassie Bernall story. Once Westword was great, but now, sadly, they’re the Enquirer. A little better than you, but not enough to haggle over. They now never miss a chance to slur Tracey or anyone else who dares address the evidence of the case, regardless of whether the story they’re allegedly covering has anything to do with the Ramseys or not.

As for you, well, all I ask is this. I encourage your readers to re-read your column. Then I’d have them read my post.

There’s no question that I’m angry – so on this count I plead guilty – and I doubtless have a bad attitude. But in my defense I have to note that bad journalism has that effect on me, and when a guy lucky enough to have your platform uses it to make his readers dumber, well, forgive my pique.

In any case, you say nothing here – and I don’t expect you ever will – that calls for further elaboration on my part. As I say in the article, there are facts in the case, there is EVIDENCE, and your “analysis” makes clear that you have no acquaintance with or interest in either.

Do I expect Harsanyi to engage the hard evidence? What do you think?

I am keeping a list, though. I expect this case to be solved some day. If I am wrong and one of the Ramseys was, in fact, involved, I will apologize to him in as public a forum as I have today indicted him.

If we find the killer and it’s not a family member? Yeah, then I’ll be inviting him to S&R for a guest piece where he can apologize to the family, to Dr. Tracey, to me, and to every reader whose IQ his brand of anti-journalism has lowered.

UPDATE: Hmmm. My comment over there isn’t showing up. If it’s awaiting moderation there’s nothing that tells me this. Could he have deleted it?

Maybe it will show up. Or maybe he’ll decide that things work better for him in a one-way legacy media world where you can control the entirety of what people get to see.

Ironically, that message control thing is part of why we’re all in this mess, huh?

Stay tuned.

Not that I expect it tho, people seem stubbornly determined to remain stupid for all intents and purposes. “never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” Lazarus Long, in Time Enough for Love, RA Heinlein.

I emphasize the word “evidence” for a reason. There are FACTS in the Ramsey case, and pretty much without exception those who are convinced of the family’s guilt are people who are relying not on evidence, but on media reports that run the gamut …