Braised lamb shanks son mas macho

You didn’t say whether the oregano was dry or fresh. This is the kind of sloppy misinformation that Moore is properly criticised for.

ASG,

1. Yes, he points to den Beste, and then defends the point himself. I don’t think that he maintains plausible deniability there.

2. Here’s the quote:

“I imagine that the Kerry campaign won’t be happy being associated with this poster.”

You’re throwing in qualifiers that aren’t there. Reynolds is the only one associating Kerry’s campaign with the poster. If he wanted to make the point you’re making (both are percieved as partisan) he certainly could have.

Yummy! Do you have a recipe for Beef & Potato Stew too?

(On a serious side note: why do you bother to quote the Instapundit drivel at all – is it boredom, are you a masochist, or some other reason?)

You are now my seventh-favorite blogger.

Reynold’s post started with a comment about a review of Moore published in the Sydney Morning Herald. I sent Reynolds my post pointing out how the review used a quote that was fabricated by Hitchens to criticize Moore. He did not link to my post, instead linking every quarter-baked criticism of Moore that he was sent.

I suspect that Reynolds Crap gets under the skin of several CT authors primarily because they, as members of the academic community, are rather unimpressed by an ostensible member of their profession not only showing himself up on a regular and egregious basis, but also having a cadre of craven lollygaggers.

Of course, now that he apparently coins it in from Blogads — and, unless his office hours are 1.03-1.06pm — it’s possibly time for the Knoxville law school to ascertain just what good it does to be most visibly represented by someone who couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

Why does Ted Barlow hate our famous 4-cheese vegetarian pizza recipe?

it’s possibly time for the Knoxville law school to ascertain just what good it does to be most visibly represented by someone who couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag.
Nah, that would definitely be an academic freedom violation (and blogging from the office probably doesn’t constitute grounds for anything; almost all academics use their office computers for personal stuff; I’m doing right now, though technically I’m not even an employee of this school anymore.)

Well, this would be more bite if, e.g., Bill Clinton hadn’t done whatever he could to link Newt Gingrich and the Republicans with the Oklahoma City bombing and militia groups. It is a common tactic to link politicians with the more extreme elements of their coalitions. If you think that tactic is illegitimate, so be it, but both sides use it. I’d even bet we could find some examples of this tactic being used by some CT contributors, somewhere along the line.

Reynolds linking and quoting den Beste while keeping some level of deniability on the content is exactly the Insty formula. In a way, he is just publishing the Freeper/LGF comment sections, and calling it a blog.

Uhh, this may draw some trolls. If not, then my theory that the web trolls are handed the FNC daily talking points, today’s being Wilson/Yellowcake/Bush didn’t lie, gains credibility.

Nah, that would definitely be an academic freedom violation

Perhaps, but Reynolds’ faculty page also shows no single-authored articles of his published since 2001, which, coinkidinkly, is when he started his blog. Ain’t tenure sweet?

My suspicion is that Prof. G. might have trouble writing a peer-reviewed article these days without using ‘heh’, ‘indeed’ and a series of citations to Mickey Kaus and James Taranto. It’s not like riding a bike…

“Michael, can you review Hodgkin vs. the United States?”
“Yes. Hodgkin was accused of larceny -”
“Wait. You are neglecting the very similar case of Jenkins vs. the United States, where Jenkins was accused of murder. Heh. Please incorporate this into your argument. Continue.”

My suspicion is that Prof. G. might have trouble writing a peer-reviewed article these days without using ‘heh’, ‘indeed’ and a series of citations to Mickey Kaus and James Taranto.

The thing is, Reynolds (like other legal academics) is unlikely to write peer-reviewed articles under any circumstances.

Law teachers typically publish in law reviews. Their articles are reviewed not by peers but by students. And the review is somewhat formal. There’s a bit more to it than mere blue-booking (during the fracas over that Harvard Law School student getting it all wrong about Intelligent Design, somebody, somewhere, posted a useful explanation of what goes into cite-checking). But articles don’t get shot down in flames because the student-editors think them wrong. (In my own long-ago law review days, I edited an article on the 2d amendment. The author reached a conclusion that I thought fundamentally wrong; but my remit didn’t extend to proposing the article be rejected on that count. Interestingly, another prominent 2d amendment scholar (and now blogger) later took the author to task for his conclusion; correctly, I thought, though I generally disagree with much of what that scholar says.)

I admit, though, that I am entranced by the notion of Reynolds submitting a paper to Nature. (‘An organism is unlikely to survive when a majority – or even a large and angry minority – of its cells is undergoing apoptosis.‘)

Delicious, easy recipe. May I suggest adding an anchovy filet, or a little paste, during the cooking? And have a second bottle of red wine available (to make up for what went in to the pot).

Bon appetit (“Tish, that’s French!” kisses up her arm…)

erm, cough… I don’t think Sadr has gained control of Falluja yet.

MC – while I concede that you have the right to alter the amount of garlic in a recipe to suit your own taste (little-known clause in the 1st Amendment), the long cooking time will render the garlic flavor deep and smooth rather than pungent. And if everyone eats it, everyone will smell the same anyway.

All people who graduated from Yale are very intelligent.

Ah, Chun, that syllogism has its very own black swan: George W. Bush. And I’m sure that with time I could come up with a fair list of dumb Yale grads.

Or were you being ironic? In which case, good show.