Right on, Mr. Auster. Those who are trying to sell a house built on sand must prevent any houses from being built on solid ground around them. Those, on the other hand, who are confident in their foundations, don’t fear the buyer shopping around.

There has been little conservative opportunity to rebut liberal-radical reasoning and rhetoric because, through their dominance of the mainline media, they have controlled the debate,the subjects of debate and public perceptions of the debate and it’s outcome.Even the publics letters to the editor can be controlled.

Today, with the advent of discussion and debate forums like VFR,conservative criticism of their message, methods and motives is available for all to see immediately.

Radical-liberals find less and less control exasperating because they cannot (or refuse to) compete in open, direct, get to the point dialogue.In the new forums their distortion of message and method are more obvious and generate quicker opposition from the right.

There’s a lesson to us all here. If there are enough outlets and listeners to establish a presence that can’t be ignored then the established outlook can no longer present itself as a system of unquestioned truth that precedes the discussion of specific issues. That radically affects politics.

The value of the written over the spoken forms, such as college extemporaneous debate, is also achingly clear.

In oral presentations much of the actual moment to moment ideologically “loaded” rhetoric goes unchallenged because it is quickly followed by newer equally egregious comments.These oral pile-on comments can come so close in time that responses to earlier comments are too late to be connected up.

In written debate forums like VFR, the pause after each comment is “frozen on the page” permits the reader a reflective pause while the comment is digested as to form, content, grammatical sensibility and relationship to the topic.A response tailored to written comment is usually more well thought out and perceptive of the direction the debate is taking.

All it takes is some common sense observation of the complex grammatical structures of the left radical chic to see the liberal mind-set at work. As we become more and more skilled in observing these tools of debate control we become harder for the left to control.

A-propos of Mr. Auster’s and Sandy’s comments: Richard Poe is coming out with a book on the subject of why conservatives predominate on the net. It’s of course the same reason they do on talk radio.

From Poe’s Blog: “PLEASE STAY TUNED… Dear Readers: Just so you know I haven’t forgotten you, please be advised that I am still in the final throes of finishing my new book, “The New Underground: How Conservatives Conquered the Internet” (Prima/Crown/Random House 2003). That is why I have not posted a new column since November 5, nor a new blog entry since November 9. My apologies. Until the book is done, updates to the site will be few and far between… to say the least! Your patience is appreciated.” [posted a week ago on www.RichardPoe.com]

“…the complex grammatical structures of the left radical chic…” — sandy

I’m not sure I understand what you mean, sandy. Can you give me an example? In parsing your comments, I’m understanding you to be referring to “complex *rhetorical* structures,” but maybe you really do mean “grammatical?” (Not that they’re unrelated.)

Sheesh. Analyzing comments about analyzing comments…I hope that doesn’t make me a postmodern…

“…the complex grammatical structures of the left radical chic…” — sandy

I’m not sure I understand what you mean, sandy. Can you give me an example? In parsing your comments, I’m understanding you to be referring to “complex *rhetorical* structures,” but maybe you really do mean “grammatical?” (Not that they’re unrelated.)

Sheesh. Analyzing comments about analyzing comments…I hope that doesn’t make me a postmodern…

Sure Jim, glad to oblige.
What follows is the classic technique of grammatically parsing simple words in order to defeat a commonly accepted and understood phrase when being questioned.(Done to avoid the issue and to confuse).

CLINTON: Well, actually, in the present tense, that’s an accurate statement. That was an actual — that was an accurate statement. If — I don’t — I think what Mr. Bennett was concerned about, if I — maybe it would be helpful to you and to the grand jurors, quite apart from these comments, if I could tell you what his state of mind was and what my state of mind was and why I think he read it to him in……

Question:
And if she defined sexual relationship in the way I think most Americans do, meaning intercourse, then she told the truth.

CLINTON: And that depends on what was in her mind. I don’t know what is her mind. You’ll have to ask her that.

Question:
The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones deposition -….saying that there was absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton. That statement was made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber Wright.

CLINTON: That’s correct.

QUESTION:
Your — that statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?

CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the word is means. If is means is, and never has been, that’s one thing. If it means, there is none, that was a completely true statement.

Notice that Clinton first tries to inject his subjective motivation- (what was in his and his attorney’s mind) to defeat the grand jury’s objective evaluation of whether he lied under oath or not.( implying they should judge him by his intentions not his words.(preference for subjective over objective).

When that doesn’t distract his questioner he moves to the technique of parsing a commonly accepted phrase, making his denial plausible if you accept his meaning of the phrase.

These and other debate techniques are the radicals delight to avoid being pinned down. Also look for excessive use of the connective words if, but, however, to build a grammatical statement of such complexity that the opponent always has an “out” and can never be pinned down by a directly taken position.

“These and other debate techniques are the radicals’ delight, to avoid being pinned down. Also look for excessive use of the connective words if, but, however, to build a grammatical statement of such complexity that the opponent always has an ‘out’ and can never be pinned down by a directly-taken position.” — Sandy

And be sure not to forget this well-worn technique:

Conservative: “The sun will rise tomorrow.”

Liberal or leftist: “I haven’t seen any studies that support that. May I see your studies on that? I haven’t seen any data that prove that.”

[A liberal or leftist will trot this out every time they’re backed into a corner.]

Ok, sandy, thanks. Now I know for sure what you meant.

Unadorn’s is an excellent further example in the vein of radical digression.
Requests for further data, or more proofs in support of your argument, can be a radical tactic to derail and distract during a debate.

The actual wording of the request can vary from soft to direct to demanding, but rhetorically the assertion is always the same: “I need more proof” which is an imputation that you haven’t reached a reasonable standard to convince anyone of your argument including your opponent or the audience. The opponent now becomes judge, not the audience.

How can you tell the difference between a radical control tactic and a simple honest request for more information?

You might be able to put the demand into its radical context. You might think it a reasonable request from a reasonable participant /opponent. Or, in multi party debate you might be led into thinking the inquiry is from a neutral 3rd party.

Identify who asks and observe the reception accorded your proof after you supply it.
Reasonable debaters accept the proofs as, good or bad, as they are, and return to the main topic.
Note Jims reply above.

Radical rhetoricians, however, will hairsplit the quality of your proof regardless of its content or reasonableness and often try to get lost in it to control or turn the debate by segue into other topics..Examples can be found right here on VFR.

Re the value of Internet forums such as this one:

I wonder if it would not be fairly easy for the political authorities to crush dissident opinion on the Internet if mainstream opinion came to believe that it posed a threat to the progress of liberalism. We already see scattered prosecutions in some liberal countries for opinions expressed on the Internet. One could protect oneself by posting anonymously, but this would not work from the point of view of the organizers of the various forums….

More face-to-face political organization or intellectual association would be more difficult for non-sympathizers to infiltrate, and harder to suppress without a full-blown totalitarian system.
It would also be more likely to encourage the development of personal loyalties among the dissidents.

Of course for the time being the Internet is extremely valuable, for example in “hooking up” like-minded people. But it might not be a good idea to rely on it to the detriment of more traditional kinds of association.