Feels mighty refreshin’, don’t it? 
It depends on what you mean by ‘insta-pundits’.
If you’re referring to the “one step from retarded” type as exemplified by Clothahump, no.
If you’re referring to someone like the oh-so-lovable DrDeth who, when confronted with the world “all” or “any” will then prove that it’s only 99% and he has therefore won…sometimes.
If you’re referring to someone like weirddave who seems to think that calling himself “independant” (regardless of what he actually is) makes him makes him the ultimate arbiter in all things…then certainly.
If you’re referring to the Bricker-like "facts are irrelvent because someone said ‘to’ when they meant ‘too’ so I’m going to nitpick everything into oblivion until everyone gets tired and I can declare victory…then yes.
Finally, if you’re referring to the type like Sam Stone who is the type that used to be the moderate conservative worth listening to but, who has gone so far into the point of silliness that his opinion is no longer worth listening to…then no. Because Sam, for some reason, actually backed away from being a totally worthless yes-bitch.
So, the final answer to your question is “maybe”.
-Joe
Point of order.
My reading is that Scylla finds it ironic that a potty-mouth characterizes what comes out of anybody else’s mouth as slime.
And, in a tip o’ the hat to my favorite Greek boulder, I will dust off my sig…
Dammit, it showed up on preview!
I like the part where O’Reilly asks the four-star general:
“Hey, general, you know what war is about?”
Good gods yes!
Actually, according to Robert’s Rules of (dis)Order, that’d be a Point of Information 
That a… potty mouth? Heh. In any case, as he’s called American citizens traitors, troop haters, and tresonous non-patriots (for the crime of staying informed) , he’s hardly in a place to talk about a single insult slung at someone who claimed that murdered soldiers were really war crminals.
Is it really “slimey” to use an epithet to describe someone who calls heroes war criminals? I sure as heck think not.
And, I’ll note, that he took the time to make that silly little digression which totally avoiding O’Liely’s slander of the troops. Obviously, finding room to fuck with other posters is more important than any moral or ethical pretense he may lay down from time to time.
Yeah, whatever. My point is that he came into the thread, not to defend Mr. O’Reilly, or to condemn him, but to note that there was irony in your using off-color language to criticize what comes out of O’Reilly’s mouth. That purpose can be served without addressing the substance of your rant.
It appears from your response to Scylla, that you feel his (Scylla’s) worst transgression was in posting without addressing your charges of scumbaggery against O’Reilly. It happens all the time. There’s nothing sacrosanct about your Pit-thread that innoculates it against a drive-by here and there.
Scylla, I hope I have not misrepresented you or mischaracterized your intentions with my posts here. If I have, I offer my apology and will accept correction.
Oh, and I suppose Bill O’Reilly is a scumbag, btw, but I base that assessment only on what I have learned about him here on the Dope. as I do not partake of news channels on TV.
The difference, though, is that the ‘slime’ that was coming out of O’Liely’s mouth had nothing to do with the language he used, but the degree of truth and venom it contained. ’
It can. But as you point out below, his main ‘sin’ was in having morals which are, apparantly, temporary, transitory, and only used when he can give another Doper a hard time.
Never said it was. Simply that it demonstrates his trollish nature. If he’s willing to go batshit nuts on Dopers for reading the news, but can’t be bothered to spare a single word to condemn someone saying our murdered troops were really war criminals choosing instead to, again, give a Doper a hard time… well, it goes to motive and content of character. You may very well disagree, and that’s your right. Ah well, eh?
Or, to put a finer point on it: As you point out, the issue I had, which we see differently, is the meat of my point about his posting style.
P.S. If you click “Show your signature” and then preview, you have to click it again when you post as it unchecks the box after a preview.
Yeah, I guess, “Ah, well” pretty much covers it. I supposed you were accusing him of pretending to say something substantive while dodging your substantive point, and I was trying to point out that he didn’t appear to be pretending to say anything substantive at all.
On my personal ThreadShit-O-Meter, I’d give it a rating of 2, maybe 2.5, on a scale of 11. I won’t insist that you adopt my scoring system, however. Perhaps one day I’ll learn to mind my own business.
And thanks for the heads-up about the “Show Signature” box and its interaction with Preview.
Pffft. A public message board is designed solely so that you can mind everybody else’s business.
No prob.
Can we agree not to distort the names of people and organizations? Saying things like “O’Liely” and “Faux News” comes across as petty and childish. (I’m aware it’s the Pit; feel free to call Bill O’Reilly a lying, pig-ignorant cowardly bully fuckhead, which he is, but don’t pretend you’re being clever by spoofing his name – unless it’s part of a Mad Magazine movie satire you’re writing.)
No.
FinnAgain:
That tends to make me dismiss you as an angry adolescent and disregard whatever point you’re making. You could be presenting a brilliant argument, but it’ll be lost on me (and, possibly, others) if you insist on making puerile fun of the names of people and institutions you don’t like.
It’s a pity, since we’re so much on the same side on the subject of this thread.
Your ad hominem fallacy has convinced me of the error of my ways.
Next time I will be an adult and call him a “fuckhead” as you suggest.
Certainly as a 25 year old man I sure must be like an angsty teen for mocking Billo’s name by merging it with the word “liar”.
So: “lying, pig-ignorant cowardly bully fuckhead” is okay and mature at six words.
“Bill O’Reily the liar” is okay and mature at four words.
“Bill O’Liely”, requiring one letter be changed is purile and just beyond the pale.
People have changed names, modified names, and twisted names since long before the first Agmomen was used. If you really feel style is more imporant than substance, and want me to write half a dozen words when five letters will get my point across just as well, then I don’t know what to say.
I probably won’t lose any sleep over it though.
I think of him as Old Ann Coulter, sans penis.
Well that’s definitely too many words!
I have no idea whether that is too many or too few words, but it certainly conjures up an image I’d have been much happier to have never envisioned.
FinnAgain:
I wasn’t making an ad hominem argument. I’m not sure you understand what that means. It’s something we frown on here on the SDMB, and you won’t find me doing it.
Yes, that’s correct.
Me:
FinnAgain:
That’s puerile. Not beyond the pale, just annoying and counterproductive.
Me:
FinnAgain:
I presume you mean agnomen. That’s something different than what you’re doing. “Bill O’Reilly Mendaxus” would be an agnomen: an additional cognomen that recognizes a specific person. (Pardon my half-baked Latin.)
“Bill O’Liely” is just a caricature. It’s true that this sort of lampoon has been around for ages, and can sometimes be effective; but it makes no sense out of its proper context, which would be a satirical piece incorporating a certain amount of fanciful exaggeration – holding up a distorted mirror to reality in order to make the reader take a hard look. Everything else you’ve said (in regard to Bill O’Reilly) has been a serious argument, based on facts and clearly stated opinions. In the midst of an otherwise well-stated diatribe, that single bit of distortion simply doesn’t belong; it adds nothing to your argument, and seems more designed to project an element of your personality than to communicate anything about the subject that hasn’t already been cogently expressed. It may even work against your case, since that particular tactic is one that I, at least, associate with petty, fatuous twits – people like Bill O’Reilly himself.
Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, ISPs have not commenced charging per word. There is the question of how you want to make your point – with a closely-reasoned, forcefully stated argument, or with the sort of nonsense most of us here left behind in grade school. Yes, substance is more important than style (except in opera, where artistic effect should never be sacrificed to political statement). But a needlessly irritating style can detract from appreciation of the substance.
Good; just think about what I’ve said. I’ll continue to carefully consider the substance of your posts, as an example of maturity and forebearance. Carry on.
Yes, I do understand what that means. Saying you wouldn’t take me seriously because you believe I’m “juvenile”, or whatever, is an ad hominem fallacy. As it’s the argument I make, and not the language that I use which determines the truth value of my posts.
I appreciate that my less-than-formal Pitting, which included my personality as part of my writing, disturbs you. Honestly, it doesn’t bother me that that’s the case. Can’t please all the people all the time, ya know? Enough people commented on the substance of what I posted that, evidently, I’m doing just fine.
In any case, it’s obvious that you have a different aesthetic than mine. I’m not sure what else to say.